Design Principles and Criteria Marine Structures ISSC 2006

16th INTERNATIONAL SHIP AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES CONGRESS 20-25 AUGUST 2006 SOUTHAMPTON, UK VOLUME 1
COMMITTEE IV.1
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA

COMMITTEE MANDATE
Concern for the quantification of general economic and safety criteria for marine structures and for the development of appropriate principles for rational life-cycle design using these criteria. Special attention shall be given to issues affecting code formation and development toward performance design, accounting for all uncertainties affecting actual structural behavior using both traditional and risk based approaches
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman:
K-N Cho M. Arai R. Basu P. Besse R. Birmingham B. Bohlmann H. Boonstra Y-Q Chen J. Hampshire C-F Hung B. Leira W. Moore G. Yegorov V. Zanic
KEYWORDS
Marine structures, life-cycle design, uncertainties, risk based approaches
529
ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

CONTENTS
531
1. 2.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 533 SAFETY & COMMERCIAL (STAKEHOLDERS) INTERESTS......................... 534 2.1 Updated modeling of stakeholders............................................................... 534 2.1.1 Stakeholders ................................................................................. 534 2.1.2 Stakeholders, safety and decision-making ................................... 534 2.1.3 Stakeholders, strategic management ............................................ 535 2.1.4 Stakeholders-regulatory ............................................................... 535 2.2 Integrating societal and private interests (incl. cost-benefit factors & lifecycle issues) ............................................................................ 536 2.3 Need for new approaches for design and operation mission definition leads to functional requirements and description of system leads to one of the following approaches: ................ 538 2.3.1 Need for both quantitative and qualitative approaches (note: approval/validation of the design process) ........................ 538 2.3.2 Use of first principles methods..................................................... 538 2.3.3 Non-standard design process (incl. risk-based & safety model concepts)............................................................................ 539 2.3.4 Tools for design (linked to TC IV.2) ........................................... 542 2.3.5 Use or misuse of expert opinion................................................... 542 2.3.6 Insurers ......................................................................................... 565 RELEVANT WORK AT IMO, IACS & ISO.......................................................... 552 3.1 IMO .............................................................................................................. 552 3.1.1 Goal based concepts..................................................................... 552 3.1.2 Bulk carriers ................................................................................. 553 3.1.3 Permanent means of access for oil tankers and bulk carriers ...... 555 3.1.4 Probabilistic methods used for damage stability.......................... 555 3.1.5 Harmonization of damage stability rules ..................................... 555 3.1.6 Large passenger ships................................................................... 559 3.1.7 Ballast water management............................................................ 560 3.2 IACS common structural rules..................................................................... 563 3.2.1 Joint tanker project, joint bulk carrier project.............................. 563 3.2.2 Ramification study and harmonization of two set of rules .......... 565 3.2.3 Other harmonization initiatives.................................................... 566 3.3 ISO ............................................................................................................... 566 3.4 US Navy & UK Navy .................................................................................. 567 RECENT UPDATES: REGULATIONS, RULES AND CODES IN DESIGN ..... 568 4.1 API ............................................................................................................... 568 4.2 OCIMF ......................................................................................................... 569 4.3 National authorities/flag, port, & coastal States .......................................... 569 DESIGN OF SHIPS AND SPECIAL SERVICE SHIPS......................................... 571 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 571
3.
4.
5.
532 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.
ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria Design principles.......................................................................................... 571 Design variables, design performance parameters and uncertainty involved 572 Design criteria: attributes, objectives, constraints ....................................... 572 Rule minima constraints-impact on design .................................................. 574 Acceptance criteria also including failure criteria and accidents ................ 574 Consideration of failure modes for novel structures.................................... 576 Preference structure for attributes, intra- and inter- attribute preferences ................................................................................................... 577 Subjective and objective decision-making and risk..................................... 579
DESIGN OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES ............................................................. 582 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 582 6.2 Design advances in major offshore structures ............................................. 582 6.3 Offshore wind farm ...................................................................................... 585 OPERATING MATTERS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS ....................................... 585 7.1 Stakeholders participation in preliminary design stages dimensional limitation of ports and waterways, specific requirements & design ................................................................................. 585 7.2 Interaction between control algorithms and structural response ................. 586 7.3 Human elementergonomics...................................................................... 588 INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE ........................................................................ 589 8.1 Asset integrity management (AIM).............................................................. 589 8.2 Risk based inspection planning.................................................................... 589 8.3 Degradation mechanisms ............................................................................. 590 8.4 Corrosion models ......................................................................................... 590 8.5 Fatigue models ............................................................................................. 591 8.6 Inspection and repair.................................................................................... 591 8.7 Assessment procedures update..................................................................... 591 HULL MONITORING & STRUCTURAL DESIGN ............................................. 593 9.1 Feedback from monitoring and its influences on structural design innovations........................................................................ 593 9.2 Innovative monitoring devices..................................................................... 594 9.2.1 Sacrificial specimen ..................................................................... 594 9.2.2 Piezoelectric sensors .................................................................... 595 9.2.3 Fiber optic strain sensors.............................................................. 596
7.
8.
9.
10. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................... 597 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 598
533
1.
INTRODUCTION
In the history of ship and offshore structure construction, an adequate balance of safety, environmental protection, cost effectiveness and efficiency has always been required. Proactive, timely safety measures are of the foremost importance, not only in terms of safe voyages, but also because imprecise safety and environmental protection measures undertaken in the hope of decreasing the costs can actually result in phenomenal expenditure in the event of an accident. However, when such measures are too meticulous in building ships, the initial cost tends to be considered too high. Then, the job for the industry is to examine various aspects of shipbuilding to strike a balance between cost safety and environmental protection. For the ISSC 2006 Design Principles and Criteria Committee, a main goal has been set as meeting such a point of optimization. First, research on the currently imposed regulatory regime is listed. In Chapter 2, the general interaction of safety and the commercial interests of the regulatory institutes has been analyzed and discussed. This chapter is an imperative for further research on, and thorough understanding of, the detailed works of the organizations, namely the International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Standards Organization (ISO), and the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), which are reviewed in Chapter 3. IMOs goal setting concept, regulations to meet intact and damage stabilities of different ships, recycling of such ships, and overall ballast water management have been introduced, along with IACSs projects of Joint Tanker, Bulk Carrier, harmonization, updated ice class requirements, and the use of risk-based approaches to rule development. ISOs rules on floating structures and the rules of other organisations, such as the European Marine Safety Agency (EMSA), and United States and United Kingdom navies were also studied. Chapter 4 deals with recent updates of regulations and codes by the American Petroleum Institute (API), Norsk Sokkels Konkuranseposisjon (NORSOK), Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), individual classification societies, and national authorities. Chapter 5 is mainly focused on criteria and principles regarding design, and the uncertainties involved. Criteria and considerations in case of failures, which are sure to occur, are also proposed. Chapter 5 is coherently concluded with the most preferable structural attributes. In the following chapter, the same procedure has been applied to offshore structures, with an addition of new concepts for liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals. Chapter 7 deals with the process of designing in regard of operating matters including stakeholders participation in preliminary design stages, the human element. Chapter 8 focuses on the inspection and the maintenance of ships and structures, dealing with accessibility of critical areas, risk based inspection, corrosion and coatings, cracks and deformation, repairs, and the condition assessment scheme and enhanced survey programme (CAS/ESP) updates. Chapter 9 concentrates on the important topic of hull monitoring and structural designs, which are crucial in general shipbuilding.
534
As the final step to the completion of our research, various surveys of practical applications concerning development of rules, cost-benefit issues for stakeholders, ballast water management, and examples of the consensual approach to risk acceptance criteria are discussed.
2. 2.1 SAFETY & COMMERCIAL (STAKEHOLDERS) INTERESTS Updated modeling of stakeholders
2.1.1
Stakeholders
Background: ISSC (2003) had proposed several distinctions between customers, stakeholders, and users, following the generally accepted practice of systems engineering textbooks. Further refinements could be proposed to this typology, such as the ones outlined in Lassagne (2004). Namely, several definitions of the term stakeholder can be found in the literature, depending on its field of origin. In the domain of risk management, and more generally in technically inspired works, the term stakeholder tends to correspond to the different parties who have interests at stake in a given case. This definition is relatively close to the one used in social sciences, for example when it comes to the question of choosing a public policy or a means of organizing public action (Stoney and Winstanley, 2001; Kelly et al., 1997). In the social sciences, this definition is largely inspired by European movements such as British Fabianism (Hutton, 1996) or German Mitbestimmung. Maritime community: The maritime community is increasingly recognizing the key role of the stakeholders. The THEMES European thematic network (THEMES, 2002) describes refinements made to the stakeholder list produced by the CA-FSEA study (CA FSEA, 1999), and includes discussion of the anticipated development of stakeholder safety related needs and perspectives. In this respect, stakeholders are defined as any person, group, organization or authority, which directly or indirectly either influences or is affected by the safety or cost effectiveness of ships and/or shipping. More than 40 stakeholders were identified. 2.1.2 Stakeholders, safety and decision-making
Background: Risk and risk analysis receive increasing attention as integral elements of societal and organizational management. At the same time there is evidence from empirical studies of decision making under different constraints, that large groups of decision-makers do not and cannot work their way through meticulous risk analysis and decision balance sheets. Krte (2002) identified discrete decision domains (political, managerial, routine, analytical and crisis domains) using a two-dimension diagram (level of authority and proximity to hazard), together with the constraints that dominate these with regard to risk analysis and decision-making. It showed how organizational and societal risk management requires interaction and collaboration from actors in different decision domains. Maritime community: Based on this research on decision-making theory, Chantelauve (2003) considered the interactions between safety and decisions for maritime stakeholders.
535
Maritime stakeholders have been firstly mapped to decision domain proposed by Krte. Then, Krtes findings on decision domains and implications on risk analysis were discussed, adapted and refined in the light of the shipping context. From this high level stakeholder analysis applied to the maritime community some refinements emerged that are due to intrinsic maritime characteristic. Of interest is the refinement made to the political domain resulting mainly from the double role and responsibility of sovereign states. On the one hand, flag States develop and enforce international regulatory instruments. On the other hand, coastal and port States are the location of the shipping traffic and potential pollution targets. 2.1.3 Stakeholders, strategic management
Background: Interestingly enough however, the definition of the term stakeholder in the strategic management literature is often ignored when it comes to engineering choices, when in fact, it might be the most operational one. Even if Professor R.E. Freeman is not the inventor of the concept of stakeholder his work (Freeman, 1984) created interest in the concept for researchers in management studies. In his text stakeholders are individuals or constituencies that are affected by or can affect the pursuit of the goals of the firm. Since then, a large number of papers have addressed the question of how to define them more precisely, what strategies stakeholders will adopt to influence a companys policy, how they should be taken into account, what stakeholders are particularly important, and how they relate to one another. Maritime community: A tentative modeling of these relations in the maritime industry was presented in Lassagne (2004). From a strategic management standpoint, shipowners stakeholders may exert some pressure on the design of their ships both through direct and indirect means. The direct way to exert pressure may rely on commercial issues, such as the operational necessity of certain design (e.g. double machinery to reduce freeload, as some inland waterways require it) or simply the refusal to charter a ship that is not deemed to be structurally sound because of the lack of proper maintenance. On the other hand, the pressure to reduce costs can have some obvious adverse consequences. The indirect way a ship-owners stakeholders may exert pressure on them is in line with recent regulatory evolutions towards a risk-based approach to design. Because risk-based approaches explicitly document the way analyses are performed in order to gain approval, the resulting dialogue between all the interested parties may generate a greater circulation of information (not only vertically between ship-owners/designs/shipyards and regulatory authorities, but also laterally between impacted parties), that in turn should allow for a better inclusion of the interests of all. The information procedure detailed in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) chapter II-2, regulation 17 regarding the possibility of alternative design and arrangement for fire safety resorts to a certain extent to this requirement. 2.1.4 Stakeholders-regulatory
Background: Until recently, the maritime regulatory framework was mainly of prescriptive nature. From that perspective, the regulator imposes the technical solutions, derived from experience and scientific principles, to be used by the industry. Lassagne (2001) fully
536
analyzes the articulation between traditional prescriptive approaches to regulation and riskbased approaches in the field of offshore industry. In spite of the efforts made and the positive effects of lessons learned from disasters in relation to safety at sea (some authors use the explicit legislation by disasters term), many authors discuss the regulatory framework. The main drawbacks (Chantelauve, 2004) denounced over-regulation and fragmentation, reactivity, and an industry compliance culture. The IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) (IMO, 2004a) introduces a new item in its work programme and agenda in May 2004: Goal-based new ship construction standards (see section 3.1.1). Maritime community: IACS especially supports a proposal for the development of goalbased standards for shipbuilding, focused for the time being on ship structures (IMO, 2004b). IACS recognizes that raising standards for new buildings can only be effective if it becomes an international effort involving all stakeholders playing an active role in the maritime industry. During the IACS presentation to IMO MSC/78 (IACS, 2004), a new vision for stakeholder role was presented as follows: - at the top, the IMO, as a regulatory body, to develop goal-based standards for shipbuilding, including a wide range of issues on safety, environmental protection and security; - in between, IACS, as a technical organization, to update the class rules for structures, machinery and equipment, in order to meet the goal-based standards, on the basis of research studies, technology developments and feedback information gathered from the industry and ships in service; and - at the forefront, the industry (shipyards, manufacturers and ship-owners) to selfregulate themselves by implementing of management policies, quality standards and best practices that will comply with the new regulations.
2.2 Integrating societal and private interests (incl. cost-benefit factors & lifecycle issues)
Like so many other industries competing in the global market place, the shipping industry is constantly challenged to meet the best interests of shareholders, customers, the public and the environment. The most successful companies are those that are able to meet the needs of private interests (i.e. shareholders, customers and employees) and societal interests (public and the environment). The shipping industry operates in an international domain where any number of regulatory jurisdictions (local, federal and international) may apply for any particular voyage. The influence of societal interests over private interests in the maritime industry has increased significantly in recent years. For example, the grounding of the tankers ERIKA and PRESTIGE and subsequent catastrophic pollution led to the general public (i.e. society) reacting to institute substantive change in the industry. The accelerated phase out of tankers constructed before the implementation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973/1978 (MARPOL 73/78) and restrictions on the size and age of ships carrying heavy fuel oils will take effect beginning in April 2005 (Moore, 2004a).
537
In general, the accelerated phase out of pre-MARPOL 73/78 tankers will bring positive long-term benefit to the public and the industry in terms of safety and protection of the environment. Younger and more structurally sound vessels will be in operation and quality owners can benefit from higher freight rates from a reduction in low tanker capacity that compete to drive freight rates lower. Additional amendments to international statutory instruments have also been made as a result of these incidents and other maritime accidents. It is imperative to ensure that the condition of a ships structure is maintained to conform to the applicable requirements. Checking this regularly during the lifecycle of oil tankers and bulk carriers is important to ensure safety and environmental protection. As a result, technical provisions have been implemented concerning means of access for inspections and thickness measurements of ships structures referred to in SOLAS regulation II-1/3-6. These encompass access to and within spaces in, and forward of, the cargo areas of oil tankers and bulk carriers. The technical provisions do not apply to the cargo tanks of combined chemical/oil tankers complying with the provisions of the International Bulk Chemical (IBC) Code. These amendments will enter into force on 1 January 2006. (Moore, 2004b). More generally, the mastery of calculated risk-taking has always been the very engine that ran the industry: seafarers face a dangerous environment; ship-owners take financial risks (the shipbuilding market varies considerably) and operational risks (they put their asset at risk whenever they use it) and commercial risks (the freight rates are highly cyclical). Nowadays, these risks are of course still present and continue to structure the inner workings of the industry. However, the very notion of safety has also become much more important, not only in itself, but also through the various meanings that have been ascribed to it. Beyond the mastery of operational risk, it is increasingly recognized as a proxy variable for corporate social responsibility by clients and by society, as a means to achieve a higher performance (e.g. swash bulkheads: these structural features not only lend themselves to the structural characteristics of the vessel but also act as a baffle, putting the sloshing motions out of phase with the leading motion of the ship, or FPSO, reducing this effect and also acting as a damper for the sloshing forces; at another level, better maintenance may help to reduce downtime due to incidents while improving safety), and even as a marketing argument, although this last dimension is quite a subtle matter. Safety is defined, to paraphrase Weick (1987), as a dynamic non-event, the absence of accidents does not mean the absence of risk, which makes communication on that subject not an easy feat. A delicate balance needs to be achieved between the acknowledgment of the existence of risk (as for instance through the move towards risk-based approaches) and the necessity to properly communicate about this notion, i.e., to specifically demonstrate that risks have been adequately identified, assessed, and managed, and that risk studies are not merely a smokescreen or a justification to serve legitimating needs. One of the keys to this balance may be to show that properly taking into account risks at the design stage is not just a matter of playing it safe for ethical purposes (which may be the object of suspicion), but also good business practice. If it can be demonstrated that safety pays (and this may be the role of risk studies), then the credibility of risk management at the design stage may be largely enhanced.
538
2.3

Need for new approaches for design and operationmission definition leads to functional requirements and description of system leads to one of the following approaches:
2.3.1
Need for both quantitative and approval/validation of the design process)
qualitative
approaches
(note:
Design for safety is a philosophy rather than a prescriptive approach and as such it is highly flexible. The discipline of formal safety assessment is similarly flexible, with many different methods being available. The success of design for safety depends entirely on the detail of its execution in the particular design environment. As such the methodology followed has to take account of conventional design practices, the nature of the designs being developed, the existing safety culture and the availability of relevant statistical or probability data (Cain, 2002). Decisions must be made throughout the development of a design as to the level of resources that are to be made available to carry out safety assessment. As such a resource plan can be generated and continually updated. Increases in safety are likely to become continually more resource expensive throughout the development of a design. Resource management as part of design for safety will inevitably take a cost benefit approach, offsetting the resources required for additional safety assessment against the benefits provided by the results of those benefits. It should be borne in mind that there is no correct level of detail. Engineering judgement must be used to gauge an appropriate level to carry out the assessment. The time taken to carry out the safety assessment should be balanced by the results achieved. In many cases an appropriate level for a particular stage in the design process will automatically be reached dependant on the safety information and data available to the designers (Birmingham et al, 2000). In practice hazard identification is relatively less resource intensive than risk estimation. The results of methods such as Failure Mode Event and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) can be presented graphically using Fault and Event Trees, or in tabular format using the Modified Boolean Representation Method (MBRM). In either case causal dependencies can be shown with or without the inclusion of probability data. Much can be learned of the significance of specific events if these relationships are analysed without probability data in a qualitative way, however comparative evaluations of the impact of different risk reducing measures are not possible. The inclusion of probability data enables a quantitative analysis to be undertaken, and decisions to be made based on numerical comparisons, however the resource implications of such an approach can be several orders of magnitude greater than with the qualitative approach. In practice the availability of relevant data may well establish to what extent a quantitative approach can be followed, as the gathering of new statistical data and the generation of probability values with which to populate MBRM tables or fault and event trees may be impossible, or at least prohibitively resource intensive. 2.3.2 Use of first principles methods
Design of conventional commercial marine vessels and facilities generally rely on prescriptive methods contained in the rules of classification societies and statutory
539
instruments (e.g. SOLAS and MARPOL). Similar methods also exist for conventional naval vessels. However, in recent years interest has developed in alternative methods in response to certain trends in industry, answering demands from the market. Principal among these trends are the use of larger and/or faster ships, oil exploration and production in deeper waters, and the development of entirely new configurations. Traditional prescriptive methods are often difficult to adapt to these new designs and alternative methods are needed. Designers have sought, and continue to seek, alternative ways of assessing vessels and facilities that cannot easily be assessed using traditional methods. In this regard firstprinciples methods are finding increasing application. Classical theory and developments in numerical methods combined with advances in computer technology have allowed firstprinciples methods to be applied more and more in practical design situations. In the context of ship and offshore structures tools have been developed for predicting hydrodynamic loads, the most recent advances being in the treatment of non-linear effects to allow loads due to extreme waves, green water, and slamming to be estimated. The use of finite element analysis for predicting structural response has a longer history and is now almost routine. Recent advances in these areas are documented in the reports of other committees, most notably ISSC Technical Committees I.2 and II.1 that address Loads and Quasi-Static Response respectively. Engineering assessment of systems that are novel in some way requires the application of first-principles methods. Nevertheless, uncertainties remain because of a lack of history of the type that prescriptive methods rely on. However, the uncertainties resulting from lack of history can be considered as being less significant than those inherent in approaches based on experience only. As a means of dealing with uncertainties associated with novel systems risk methodologies are being increasingly applied. In an attempt to respond to industry demands resulting from the development of new innovative concepts, Classification societies have developed risk-based methodologies for assessment purposes. For example, Det norske Veritas (DNV) has developed a recommended practice (DNV; 2001) for assessing new technology and the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) published guidelines (ABS, 2003) last year for the evaluation of novel systems. 2.3.3 Non-standard design process (incl. risk-based & safety model concepts)
The term Design for Safety refers to the general engineering principle of including safety as a design characteristic at the early stages of design. The principle has been used in everything from the design of football stadiums to nuclear power stations, including drug distribution systems in healthcare networks and safety critical software design. Design for safety emerged as a term in the marine industry in the late 1990s. In 1992 the UK proposed FSA as a way of developing rules in a more robust manner. Designers and researchers very quickly seized upon this. Risk Based Design became a real opportunity for ship owners to have ships customized to their needs whilst maintaining the same safety levels. However, risk based design is very expensive and time consuming and so has not been adopted as much as it could have been. It was from this background that marine design
540
for safety emerged. The key drivers of the philosophy are to keep safety as an important functional characteristic of the design and to speed up the process of risk and cost analysis, so that the process itself becomes more usable. The methodology describes one tool, based on the risk contribution tree, which the design for safety philosophy has produced. It comes from a European funded project called Safety at Speed (Delautre 2003, and Safety at Speed 2004). There are four parts to the risk contribution tree methodology: risk model, parameters, cost model, and methodologies for calculating probabilities (represented by the arrows in Figure 1). Risk contribution trees have been around for a long time. They consist of an event tree section and a fault tree section. This means that it is a truly risk based approach as it investigates both the frequency and consequence of any event. Figure 2 shows a risk contribution tree and all its parts. The basic structure of a risk contribution tree is a fault tree, usually drawn vertically, and an event tree, usually drawn from left to right. The tree is populated in two ways. The first is in the fault tree. To populate a fault tree you must supply it with the probability of occurrence of a basic event (see Figure 2). A basic event is an occurrence that is at the minimum level of detail being analyzed. For example, if you are using a high-level fault tree a basic event may be a failure of the propulsion system. If you are using a much more detailed fault tree you may have failure of the fuel pump as your basic event. The two basic events may have the same outcome; loss of control leading to a collision or grounding, but the more detailed one allows a closer look at what the weakest link is. The second way a risk contribution tree must be populated is in the event tree. A probability must be provided for every branch in the tree. These probabilities are called gate probabilities; an example of this may be a gate for the loss of watertight integrity. The tree has two choices, there is a loss of watertight integrity or there is not, either way the user must provide the probability of each branch occurring given the scenario being analyzed. The basic events and gate probabilities are not static but change depending on changes to the design, the operation and the environment of the vessel being analyzed. The characteristics that affect the probabilities are referred to as the parameters. The parameters: The parameters are the descriptors of the vessel, the organizational, human and procedural factors, and of course, the environmental description. The parameters describe all the usual naval architectural details, for example the ships length and shape. But they also go into much more detail. The parameters must describe the route the vessel will be taking, and give an indication of what traffic density the crew will have to work with. These types of parameters affect the occurrence of an accident.
541
Figure 1 The four parts of the risk contribution tree method

Top and initiating events
Event tree section Fault tree section Gate probabilities
Basic events
Figure 2 Risk contribution tree There are also mitigating parameters. These include design features like double hulls for tankers. However, there are also other, less obvious mitigating parameters for example rerouting a vessel away from environmentally sensitive areas. This has the effect of reducing the risk by reducing the possible consequence should something go wrong. The parameters describe everything about the ship, the environment she is in and how she is operated. The reliability of the risk analysis increases with the level of detail described. Methodology tools: As discussed above, the parameters describe the ship and her environment, but they also describe implicitly how she will react in a given scenario. In other words the probabilities of an occurrence, either as a basic event or as a gate probability, depend on the values of the parameters. This means that the probabilities must be some function of the parameters This calculation is not an easy task to perform. However, some subject areas are more advanced than others in providing tools in this area. For example, reliability based structural analysis has been developed for a while. This methodology can give the probability of a structural failure. This structural failure could be one of the basic events or event tree gates that need to be populated to complete the risk modeling. Every basic event and gate needs a
542
tool that can calculate the required probability. This is where most of the resources needed to develop such a methodology are expended. There have been developments in this area, in fact marine structural engineers have some of the most advanced tools that can be used in this area (Melchers 2002, Hrte 2004 and Collette 2005). However, there are other areas which have developed successful tools that are fit for this purpose, for example, the probability of survival from a damage stability point of view can be assessed using the Static Equivalent Method (Tagg 2002). In Figure 3, we can see how the safety at speed project used structural reliability calculation to populate the risk contribution tree successfully. Cost model: To perform a trade off or optimization, a designer needs competing criterion. Otherwise there will be nothing to tell the designer when enough has been done. This competing criterion is normally a cost/benefit analysis. The preferred method for the risk contribution tree is a full through life net present value analysis. The reason it should be a full through life analysis, is that there are costs, such as maintenance, and benefits like increased shop space on a passenger ferry, which will not be taken into account if you just look at design or building costs. The Net Present Value is calculated as follows:
(Income Costs ) (1 + Discount Rate)

0 toN
-N
N is the number of years of life including building and decommissioning. This method then allows a complete economic analysis to be performed, allowing the design to be optimized for safety, whilst maximizing the potential profits of the owner/operator. 2.3.4 Tools for design (linked to TC IV.2)
The complexity of the synthesis procedure (shown through its dimensionality, the nonlinearity of response and feasibility models, the stochastic definition of loading and material, subjectivity of quality assessment etc.) permits only certain combinations of calculation modules. Different methodologies in deterministic concept (C), reliability based concept design (R), deterministic preliminary (basic) design (P) and detail design (D) that are capable of accommodating those needs are listed in Table 1. Table 2 gives the Decision Support Problem definition and analysis and synthesis (Decision Making) modules used in the recent references. 2.3.5 Use or misuse of expert opinion
The MSC78/19/3 document (IMO, 2004c) develops an approach that may be used to help determine the degree of agreements between experts. Experts are sometimes used to rank risks associated with accident scenarios, or to rank the frequency or severity of hazards. One example is the ranking that takes place at the end of FSA Step 1. Hazard Identification. This is a subjective ranking, where each expert may develop a ranked list of accident scenarios, starting with the most severe. To enhance the transparency in the result, the resulting ranking should be accompanied by a concordance coefficient, indicating the level of agreement between the experts.
543
Figure 3 Structural reliability calculations integrated with a design for safety tool [Collette 2005]
544
Table 1 SOME APPLICABLE COMBINATIONS OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN MODULES IN DECISION SUPPORT PROBLEMS
MODULE CONCEPT DESIGN C1.1: 1D / 2D FEM models for longitudinal strength calculation C1.2: 2D FEM models for transverse (secondary) response C1.3: Partial 3D FEM models C2.1: Static standard loads C2.2: Standard wave loads (pressures, accelerations, moments, shear forces) RELIABILITY BASED CONCEPT DESIGN R1.1: 1D / 2D FEM models for longitudinal strength calculation R1.2: 2D FEM models for transverse (secondary) response R1.3: Partial 3D FEM models R2.1: Static loads R2.2: Ship motions (pressures, accelerations) R2.3: Ocean wave statist. analysis R2.4: Design load combinations (ship mission profile/operational matrix/ ships RAO) PRELIMINARY/INITIA L DESIGN P1.1: Partial 3D FEM models P1.2: Full ship 3D FEM models P1.3: ISUM models DETAIL DESIGN D1.1: Partial 2D fine mesh FEM model D1.2: Partial 3D fine mesh FEM model D1.3 Micromesh FEM model D2.1: Displacements from global FEM model used as boundary conditions (topdown approach) D2.2: Self weight, concentrated forces, pressures D2.3: Dynamic loads (fatigue) D3.1: Responses from 2D/3D FEM fine mesh models (D1.1 and D1.2) D3.2: Micromesh responses (stresses concentration models)
M1 MODEL
M2 LOADS
P2.1: Extreme motions/loads (equivalent wave, pressures, accelerations, moments, shear forces) P2.2: Dynamic loads and phasing between extreme loads
C3.1: Approximate analysis (Extended Beam Theory) of longitudinal strength and shear flow (using C1.1) C3.2: Transverse strength calculations based on FEM frame model (using C1.2) C3.3: 3D analytical model with stiffened plate elements (longitudinal and transverse strength)
R3.1 Approximate analysis (Extended Beam Theory) of longitudinal strength and shear flow (using C1.1) R3.2: Transverse strength calculations based on FEM frame model (using C1.2) R3.3: 3D analytical model with stiffened plate elements (longitudinal and transverse strength)
P3.1: Ship (full / partial) 3D FEM response based upon: P3.1.1: macro-elements (superposition of FEM and analytical responses for e.g. stiffened panels) P3.1.2: coarse mesh models P3.1.3: superelement models P3.2: Global and local response of structures composed of stiffened panels by analytical methods
M3 RESPONSE
545
MODULE
CONCEPT DESIGN C4.1 Library of global design criteria : ultimate strength; serviceability; global vibration C4.2: Library of local design criteria : ultimate strength (buckling, yielding); fabrication constraints; serviceability c., deflections c.; local vibration c. C5.1: Min. cost (initial, maintenance) C5.2: Min. weight (dwt increase) C5.3: Maximal safety measure based on deterministic and/or partial safety factors levels C5.4: Maximal collapse capability for symmetric and nonsymmetric (e.g. racking) loadcases
RELIABILITY BASED PRELIMINARY/INITIA CONCEPT DESIGN L DESIGN R4.1: Dynamic stress freq. distribution: (extreme stresses probab. distr. superimposed on the most prob. extreme value; correlation estimates) R4.2: Library (C4.1) of design feasibility criteria R4.3: Failure probab. constraints P4.1 Library of global design criteria: ultimate strength; serviceability; global vibration criteria P4.2: Library of local design criteria : ultimate strength (buckling, yielding); fatigue, fabrication, serviceability, deflections c.; local vibration c.
DETAIL DESIGN D4.1: Library of local design criteria : ultimate strength (buckling, yielding, fracture), fatigue, fabrication, deflections, serviceability constraints
M4 FEASIBILITY
R5.1: Minimal cost (initial, maint.) R5.2: Min. weight (dwt increase) R5.3: Maximal reliability measure (based on failure probability or failure bounds) for component failures and system failure R5.4: Minimal measure of risk R5.5: Maximal safety measure based on deterministic and/or partial safety factors levels R5.6: Maximal collapse capability for design loadcases
P5.1: Minimal cost (initial, maint.) P5.2: Min. weight (dwt increase) P5.3: Satisfaction of prescribed safety measure based on deterministic and/or partial safety factors levels P5.4: Satisfaction of the prescribed minimal capability for symmetric and non-symmetric (e.g. racking) loadcases
D5.1: Minimal production cost D5.2: Minimal weight of detail D5.3: Satisfaction of prescribed safety measure based on deterministic and/or partial safety factors levels D5.4: Satisfaction of the prescribed minimal capability for design loadcases
M5 QUALITY
546
MODULE
CONCEPT DESIGN C6.1: Minimization (MODM, MADM) of multi-criteria value / utility function via: global optimization for eg. ship transverse section local substruct. optimization using SLP, QLP, ES, GA, SA... C6.2.1 Generation (MODM, MADM) of Pareto frontier (hyper-surface of non-dominated feasible designs using : ES, GA etc. C6.2.2: Multicriteria design selection in metric space for preferred design (e.g. goal programming) C6.3 Hybrid approaches
RELIABILITY BASED PRELIMINARY/INITIAL CONCEPT DESIGN DESIGN R6.1 Problem decomposition and conflict resolution procedures R6.2.1 Generation (MODM, MADM) of Pareto frontier (hypersurface of non-dominated feasible designs using : ES, GA etc. R6.2.2: Multi-criteria design selection in metric space e.g. goal programming, for preferred d. R6.3 Hybrid approaches P6.1 Problem decomposition and conflict resolution procedures P6.2: Minimization (MODM, MADM) of multicriteria value / utility function via coordinated (model / goal): global optimization for eg. ship transverse section local substructure scantling optimization eg. stiffened panels using SLP, QLP, GA, SA, ES, etc P6.3.1 Generation (MODM, MADM) of Pareto frontier (hyper-surface of nondominated feas. designs using : ES, GA etc. P6.3.2: Multi-criteria design selection in metric space e.g. goal programming, for preferred d. 6.4 Hybrid approaches
DETAIL DESIGN D6.1: Local scantling optimization of substructures / parts (SLP, QLP, GA, SA, ES, etc.) D6.2: Topology and shape optimization D6.3: Efficient elimination of infeasible designs and conflict resolution procedures
M6 SYNTHESYS
547
TABLE 2 RECENT REFERENCES IN FORMULATION OF DECISION SUPPORT PROBLEMS FOR SHIP STRUCTURES
548
TABLE 2a SOME REFERENCES IN FORMULATION OF DECISION SUPPORT PROBLEMS FOR SHIP STRUCTURES
549
*modules defined in Table 1
550
ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria TABLE 2b
551
REFERENCES RELATED TO GENERAL STRUCTURAL DESIGN
552
2.3.6
Insurers
The global marine hull and machinery and protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance industries are generally acceptable to any new safety criteria that will improve the overall safety and environmental protection of ships world-wide that will positively influence the incidence and cost of claims. Historically, shipowners who used new and innovative techniques, procedures and designs seen to enhance safety could make a case to have more competitive premiums in comparison to vessels and shipowners or ship managers operating similar tonnage. However, this is not true today primarily for two reasons. First, safety and environmental protection is considered to be a requirement and a cost of doing business and not an activity that is seen as setting a company apart. IMO statutory requirements for ISM Code, ballast water management, marine and air pollution and many other requirements are either now mandatory or will be mandatory in the near future. Insurers are willing to provide competitive rates to those owners who, through the implementation of these initiatives, are able to show a reduction in the number and costs of claims. Therefore, safety and environmental protection must be reflected in the bottom line. Second, the overall competitive pricing of the marine insurance business, particularly for hull and machinery insurance, has made it difficult for many quality owners to be given significant premium reductions compared to other ship owners. Therefore, in many cases pricing becomes a commercial decision rather than a risk based decision.
3.
RELEVANT WORK AT IMO, IACS & ISO
3.1
IMO
3.1.1
Goal based concepts
Goal-based standards will become the framework for setting all future safety standards at IMO (Moore, 2005). In November 2003, IMO adopted resolution A.944 (23), Strategic plan for the organization whereby IMO should develop goal-based standards for the design and construction of new ships through setting the safety level to be achieved (see Figure 1). This would leave the classification societies, ship designers, naval architects, marine engineers and ship builders to meet the overall standard by applying their expertise to meet the IMO safety level. The five-tier system on which the development of goal-based standards is being based consists of: goals (Tier I), functional requirements (Tier II), verification of compliance criteria (Tier III), technical procedures and guidelines, classification rules, and industry standards (Tier IV), and
553
codes of practice and safety and quality systems for shipbuilding, ship operation, maintenance, training, manning etc. (Tier V). At the 80th session of the MSC (MSC 80) in May 2005, the Committee agreed with the basic principles of goal based standards and with the Tier I goals that IMO goal based standards are: 1. broad, over-arching safety, environmental and/or security standards that ships are required to meet during their life-cycle; 2. the target level to be achieved by the requirements applied by class societies and other recognized organizations, administrations and IMO; 3. clear, demonstrable, verifiable, long standing, implementable and achievable, irrespective of ship design and technology; and 4. specific enough in order not to be open to different interpretations. Tier I goals consider that all new ships are to be designed and constructed for a specific design life and to be safe and environmentally friendly, when properly operated and maintained under the specified operating and environmental conditions, in intact and specified damage conditions, throughout their life. Progress was also made at MSC 80 on development of the Tier two functional requirements for tankers and bulk carriers on unrestricted navigation. These goal-based standards specify the design life to be no less than 25 years and other principles including structural strength, fatigue life, residual strength, and protection against corrosion. 3.1.2 Bulk carriers
At MSC 78 in May 2004, the Committee approved amendments to chapters III and XII of SOLAS related specifically to enhance the safety of bulk carriers (Moore, 2004b). These amendments took into account decisions that were made by the MSC at its 76th session in 2002 and subsequent studies on bulk carrier safety after the significant number of lives and ships lost in the 1980s through the early 1990s. They focus on: 1. double-side skin construction of bulk carriers to be a non-mandatory option but where opted for, they set out the requirements for their construction; 2. expansion of requirements for loading instruments bulk carriers of less than 150m in length; 3. hold and ballast water ingress alarms; 4. availability of pumping systems; 5. restrictions on sailing with holds empty; 6. free-fall life boats; and 7. structural redundancy of bulk carriers.
554 3.1.2.1 Double side skin construction
The MSC decided to reverse an earlier decision to make double side skin (DSS) construction of bulk carriers mandatory. Nevertheless, it was agreed that bulk carriers of DSS construction should be an option and thus amendments were made to SOLAS chapter XII for the construction of these vessels. The DSS construction option applies to new bulk carriers of 150m in length or more carrying solid bulk cargoes having a density of 1,000 kg/m3 and above. 3.1.2.2 Loading instruments for bulk carriers less than 150m in length New bulk carriers of less than 150m in length are to be fitted with loading instruments capable of providing information on the ships stability in the intact condition. The software shall be approved for stability calculations by the flag Administration and shall be provided with standard conditions for testing purposes relating to the approved stability information 3.1.2.3 Hold and ballast water ingress alarms Bulk carriers are to be fitted with water level detectors in each cargo hold giving audible and visual alarms for water ingress, ballast tanks and in any dry or void space other than the chain locker any part of which extends forward of the foremost cargo hold. This regulation applies to all bulk carriers regardless of their date of construction. Bulk carriers constructed before July 1, 2004 shall comply with the requirements of this regulation no later than the date of annual, intermediate or renewal survey of the ship to be carried out after July 1, 2004, whichever comes first. 3.1.2.4 Availability of pumping systems A means for draining and pumping ballast tanks forward of the collision bulkhead and bilges of dry spaces and any part of which extends forward of the foremost cargo hold shall be capable of being brought into operation from a readily accessible enclosed space. The space is to be accessible from the navigational bridge or propulsion machinery control position without traversing exposed freeboard or superstructure decks. Bulk carriers constructed before July 1, 2004 shall comply with the requirements of this regulation no later than the date of annual, intermediate or renewal survey of the ship to be carried out after July 1, 2004, but in no case later than July 1, 2007. 3.1.2.5 Free fall lifeboats The MSC approved an amendment to SOLAS chapter III, Life-saving appliances and arrangements, which was adopted at the 79th session of the MSC making mandatory the carriage of free-fall lifeboats on bulk carriers. 3.1.2.6 Other bulk carrier safety issues The MSC approved for future adoption two MSC resolutions on standards and criteria for side structures of bulk carriers of single-side skin (SSS) construction and standards for
555
owners inspections and maintenance of bulk carrier hatch covers. The Committee also approved circulars providing guidelines for assessing the longitudinal strength of bulk carriers during loading, unloading and ballast water exchange and guidance for checking the structure of bulk carriers. Noting that regulation 6.5.3 of SOLAS chapter XII, reads, the structures of cargo areas shall be such that single failure of one stiffening member will not lead to immediate consequential failure of other structural items potentially leading to the collapse of the entire stiffened panel is a vague expression from the view point of designers and noting that there has been no such kind of provisions for bulk carriers requiring structural redundancy, IACS has considered the proper interpretations which will be submitted to IMO. From the ramification study for one capesize and two panamax bulk carriers it was found that in order to satisfy this requirement for shell plate of cargo areas only about 10% of scantling increase from the present rule requirement in order to obtain such structural redundancy is needed. In this respect, IACS is going to submit documents to MSC 80 in order to address this problem. 3.1.3 Permanent means of access for oil tankers and bulk carriers
According to IMO resolution MSC.158 (78) each space within the cargo area of oil tankers and bulk carriers shall be provided with a permanent means of access. These means will allow overall and close-up inspections and thickness measurements of the ships structures throughout the life of a ship. Safe access to the ships structures are provided by various types of elevated passageways, permanent ladders (vertical and inclined), portable ladders and movable means of access (hydraulic arms with a stable base and wire lift platforms). 3.1.4 Probabilistic methods used for damage stability
In May 2005, the MSC made amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1, Construction- Structure, subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations to harmonize the provisions on subdivisions and damage stability for passenger and cargo ships. These amendments were based on probabilistic methods for determining damage stability based on the detailed study of collision data collected by IMO over many years. Since it is based on statistical evidence of actual collisions, the probabilistic concept was believed to be more realistic than traditional deterministic methods. The revised provisions in parts A, B and B-1 of chapter II-1 will be applicable to new ships built after January 01, 2009, the expected entry into force date. 3.1.5 Harmonization of damage stability rules
The revision of the SOLAS chapter II-1, Part A, B and B-1 started more than 10 years ago. The aim of this revision was to harmonize the rules for cargo ships and passenger ships and in particular the rules concerning the damage stability.
556
In September 2004, the IMO/SLF 47 subcommittee agreed on a revised text of SOLAS. Some delegations, headed by Italy questioned some of the new statistics used to derive some of the measures. probability. In January 2005, an intersessional meeting agreed on a compromise : the linear relation between ship length and damage length will be cut off at a ship length equal to 260 m instead of 330 m. The sample ships having a length equal or greater than 260 m were recalculated in order to update the probabilities affected by this modification. In March 2005, the revised text was ready to be submitted to the MSC 80 for adoption in May 2005. The new revised SOLAS will enter into force on the 1st January 2009. Up to now for passenger ships, two different regulations apply : A.265, based on a probabilistic and deterministic concept, SOLAS 90, based only upon a deterministic concept (minimum distance between transverse watertight bulkheads, damage penetration equal to B/5); A.265 is more likely to be applied on roro passenger ships carrying a relatively small number of passengers and having a lower garage hold. SOLAS 90 is applied for all type of passenger ships (except high speed crafts). Since 1992, cargo ships with a length greater than 100 m, apply either : The Load Line Convention based on a deterministic concept (reduced freeboard), The SOLAS Part B-1 based on a probabilistic concept : called as SOLAS 92 (freeboad of type B). Since 1998, cargo ships with a length between 80 m and 100 m are also subject to damage stability requirements based on the SOLAS 92 concept. The new rules are mainly based on the concept of the probabilistic regulation of SOLAS 92 for cargo ships : A=p.r.s.v>R Where : A is the Attained index, p is the probability distribution of the length of damage r is the probability distribution of the transverse extent of damage (penetration), v is the probability distribution of the vertical extent of damage, s is the probability that the ship survives a specific damage, R is the required index.
557
The formulae for the factors of probability have been updated from the new statistics, anyway, major differences occur and are listed in the table below :
New rules : SOLAS 2009 (cargo and passenger ships) SOLAS 92 (cargo ships only)
The calculations are done for 3 draughts (summer, light service, partial)
The calculations are done for 2 draughts (summer, partial (*))
The permeability of the cargo hold is a function of draughts and type of cargo
The permeability of the cargo hold is constant and equal to 0.70
The damage extent is up to B/2
The damage extent is up to the centre line
The damage stability calculations are performed for several trims if the range of operational trims exceed +/0.5% Ls The maximum damage length is equal to 60 m Footnote : (*) : not the same as for the new rules
The damage stability calculations are performed at level keel (trim = 0)
The maximum damage length is equal to 48 m
In addition, for passenger ships : - The damage stability calculations are performed for the intermediate stages of flooding, - The damage stability calculations should also take into account the greater of the moment : crowding of passengers toward one side, launching of the survival crafts, wind as per the SOLAS 90 requirements. - A minor damage concept is also included in regulation 8 to account for the standard of subdivision as a function of the number of persons on board, as described in the tables below :
558 Standard of damage : Number of persons on board > 400
the damage is assumed at any position along the side shell (two compartment standard) The damage is assumed between transverse watertight bulkheads (one compartment standard)
< 400
Damage description : The vertical extent of damage is from the ships moulded baseline up to 12.5 m above the deepest subdivision load line (summer load line). More severe damages of a lesser vertical extent have also to be investigated. The longitudinal and transverse extent of damage are calculated as a function of the number of persons on board : Number of persons on board > 400 s = 1 for all the 3 loading conditions considering a damage extent of 0.08 Ls measured from the forward perpendicular a damage length of 0.03 Ls but not less than 3 m in conjunction with a damage penetration of 0.1 B but not less than 0.75 m = 36 a damage length of 0.015 Ls but not less than 3 m in conjunction with a damage penetration of 0.05 B but not less than 0.75 m The damage dimensions are obtained by linear interpolation between the values for 36 persons and 400 persons
36 < < 400
ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria Effect on the design :
559
In principle, the rules allow for more flexibility to design a ship than the current SOLAS. They also give benefit to double skin and horizontal watertight decks above the waterline, and it is foreseen that ships will be fitted with such arrangement, as it is already the case for cargo ships complying with the current SOLAS Part B-1. The new requirement for bottom damages will lead in practical to a minimum double bottom height of B/20 (regulation 9). Attention will have to be paid to drain and bilge wells as well as piping system arrangement. The vertical escape hatches, as well as the evacuation routes have to be protected from immersion. The controls of watertight doors, the equalisation devices, the valves on piping or on ventilation ducts have to remain accessible and operable. The ventilation ducts should also not lead to progressive flooding. Otherwise the ship will be considered lost (the probability of survival s will be equal to zero). Unprotected openings and escapes will have, in principle, to be located as close as possible to the centre line. These requirements will increase the complexity of the design, especially at the early stage. As a conclusion, if for cargo ships, the new rules should not have an important impact on their design, it will not be the case for passenger ships. In particular all the elements listed above should increase the complexity of the design. In addition, it has been demonstrated that different interpretations of the rules may be done and that the development of explanatory notes was crucial to obtain a uniform interpretation. These explanatory notes are under development by an inter-sessional correspondence group in order to be finalized by September 2006. 3.1.6 Large passenger ships
In 2000, the MSC initiated a Working Group to address whether there were any safetyrelated questions unforeseen by existing regulations for large passenger ships. The Working Group has been tasked with coordinating this work with the relevant IMO subcommittees. The Committee has agreed a revised program for the main tasks and objectives of this work as follows: improve ship survivability in the event of grounding, collision or flooding with a view to minimizing the need to abandon ship; consider fire protection and prevention measures with a view to minimizing the need to abandon ship; consider escape, muster and evacuation issues with a view toward ensuring the safe and orderly movement of persons during an emergency; review lifesaving appliances and arrangements requirements with a view to improving evacuation, recovery measures and subsequent SAR procedures;
560
ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria evaluate recovery and rescue techniques and equipment and propose measures as appropriate; develop measures to assess alternative designs and arrangements so as to ease the approval of new concepts and technologies provided that an equivalent level of safety is achieved; review human element issues with regard to operations, management and training with a view towards improving safety; consider measures to ensure that ships can safely proceed to port after a fire or flooding casualty; consider measures to improve prevention of groundings and collisions; review medical management practices including facilities, equipment, personnel qualifications and staffing levels; improve measures related to ship security; and review measures related to health-safety on board.
In 2004, it was decided that the focus of attention should not only be on large passenger ships but on all passenger ships regardless of size. To date, the definition of what constitutes a large passenger ship has yet to be defined. It was agreed at MSC 78 that the guiding philosophy, strategic goals and objectives of the work should be directed at preventing casualties in the first place and survivability so that if an event or casualty should occur, persons can stay safely on board the ship as the vessel proceeds to port. Consequently, the Committee agreed to three important definitions: (1) time to recover, (2) time to rescue, and (3) place of safety. For time to recover, the maximum duration for which persons should be expected to stay in a survival craft is 5 days taking into account humanitarian needs of those onboard, hazards to life and health that people might be expected to face on such craft. At MSC 80 in May 2005, the Committee agreed a revised work plan for the on-going work by relevant subcommittees on safety of passenger ships. The revised plan addresses the guiding philosophy for the regulatory framework to place more emphasis on accident prevention rather than mitigation. It is viewed that future passenger ships should be designed for improved survivability so that in the event of a casualty, persons can stay onboard ship while the vessel proceeds to port. 3.1.7 Ballast water management
The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments was adopted at IMO in February 2004. Regulation D-2 of the convention, Ballast Water Performance Standard, stipulates the maximum concentration of organisms and of microbes allowable in the ballast water discharged from ships.
561
The application year of the convention varies according to a ships ballast water capacity. For example, a new ship constructed with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 cubic meters shall conduct ballast water management that satisfies regulation D-2 from the year 2009, while on the other hand; a ship with larger capacity of 5000 cubic meters or more should meet the regulation from 2012. There is a condition, however, that in order for the convention to be enforced, the number of states that approve the convention and also the combined merchant fleets of those states should exceed the pre-determined values, so it is uncertain when the convention actually starts. Another noteworthy fact is that it may take a rather long time to develop new technologies that can satisfy the requirements of regulation D-2. Therefore, considering the necessity of practically managing the vast amount of ballast water from ships, exchange methods are so far still the only available techniques for managing ballast water. The requests by some local port authorities that ballast water be exchanged at sea are also still being made and they must be taken into account. There are several procedures for exchanging ballast water at sea: the sequential method, by which all of the ballast water is pumped out from tanks one by one; the flow-through method, by which the ballast water is pumped up from the tank to overflow across the deck and is replaced gradually by new sea water; and a few other methods of less practical application at the moment. The characteristics and possible problems of the two methods are summarized in the following table (Nakamura, 2001). In order to investigate the technical problems involved in ballast water management, a joint research project, RR-S502, led by The Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan was carried out in 2000-2004. As a result of the project, a procedure to evaluate the sea conditions by using the data collected by the marine research satellite GEOSAT was proposed (Shinkai, et al. 2002). The routes between Japan and Australia and Japan and North America were investigated and the sea areas suitable for the ballast water exchanges were identified. A numerical method of simulating the ballast water sloshing that occurs during its sequential exchange was developed (Arai et al. 2002, 2003, 2004). A feasibility study of such safety aspects as longitudinal strength, stability, forward draft, propeller immersion, trim, and bridge visibility for about thirty ships was also carried out in the joint research project (Nakamura, 2001). The study revealed that it is impossible for the existing ships with the current water tank arrangements to satisfy all of the acceptance criteria at the same time. Suggestions for solving this problem were also made. The relation between the sea conditions and the occurrence of slamming at the bottom of the bow during sequential ballast water exchange was studied (RR-S502, 2004).
562
Table 4 SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED REGARDING BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE METHODS (IMO, 2004D; NAKAMURA, 2002)
Sequential Method Ballast tanks are pumped out and refilled with clean ocean water. All of the ballast water should be discharged until suction is lost, and stripping pumps or educators should be used if possible. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 1) 2) Increase of longitudinal bending moment and shearing force Declining of stability Occurrence of sloshing in tanks Occurrence of slamming due to insufficient fore draft Occurrence of hull vibration due to variation of draft and loading conditions Occurrence of insufficient Navigation bridge visibility Influence on ship maneuverability and propulsive efficiency by derailing from adequate drafts and trims
Flow-through Method Ballast tanks are simultaneously filled and discharged by pumping clean ocean water allowing the water to overflow the tanks. The tank volume should be pumped through the tank at least three (3) times. 1) Excessive pressure to ballast tanks and piping 2) Damage to air pipe heads due to large amount of water passing through 3) Bad influence on stability due to frozen ballast water on deck in low temperature areas No influence to ship operation because the ships condition does not change
Method
Ship Strength
Ship Operation
Maintenance Work
1) Restricted maintenance of generators
1) 2) 3)
Crew Safety And Additional Work
When the hold ballast water is exchanged, the crew should always monitor a water level in the hold by level gauges to prevent damages to hatch covers and hull structure from over filling and it is finally confirmed with allege measuring by crew using access hatches. In bad weather, this work on deck to check alleges is quite dangerous for the crew.
1)
2)
3)
Restriction of deck maintenance work due to overflow water on the deck Acceleration of corrosion of deck structure members due to overflow water on deck Restricted maintenance of generators Opening manholes to release overpressure by pumped water to tanks is essential to prevent damage to tanks/holds. This work depends on weather and additional work to the crew. Work of opening and watching manholes on deck restricts the crew for a long time. It is dangerous to open and close manholes during bad weather and night time.
563
In regard to the flow-through method, the risk of over pressure in tanks caused by the pumping operation was studied (RR-S502, 2004). It was shown that the additional pressure could be released by opening manholes or increasing the sectional area of the tanks overflow pipes. A new method to exchange ballast water by using the pressure difference around the hull surface of a ship in forward motion was proposed (Numata, et al. 2002). It does not require any pumping operation except for topping up the water to the initial water level (see Figure 4). The effectiveness of the method was verified by model experiments and the total power needed was estimated to be one fifth of that of the flow-through method. These fundamental research results provide useful information not only for shipbuilders but also for operators. Besides the above-mentioned joint research project, Shinoda et al. (2002, 2003) examined the exchange rate of the ballast water during flow-through operation. According to their model test results, the volume of water necessary for the exchange of 95% of the ballast water in a tank is greatly influenced by the arrangement of pipes and manholes. The effect of ship motion was also examined in their experimental study. More information regarding the details of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments can be found at the IMO website at www.imo.org or in Moore (2004c, 2005)
Figure 4 Proposed procedures for natural ballast water exchange
3.2
IACS common structural rules
3.2.1
Joint tanker project, joint bulk carrier project
Rule requirements intended to provide detailed criteria and standard means for meeting the goals and functional requirements established in the goal-based regulations are items such as statutory requirements, class rules and industry standards. In line with the goal based standards for which IMO identifies the need and intends to establish, IACS has been devoting itself to develop common structural rules for the determination of the common structural scantlings for double hull oil tankers of more than or equal to 150 meters and bulk carriers of more than or equal to 90 meters since IACS decided to undertake the work as a
564
pilot project in June 2003. These common structural rules will change the expectations for the newly designed ships as shown in the following diagram.
Regulatory demands, Safe for entire life Environmentally friendly Industry demands, Fit for purpose Robust and Reliable Easy to maintain
IMO Goal Based Regulatory Framework
IACS Common Structural Rules for Tankers (JTP) and Bulk Carriers (JBP)
Industry Practices and Procedures for Design, Construction and peration
Figure 5 Common structural rules for the newly designed ships At present, the Joint Tanker Project (JTP) team composed of ABS, DnV and Lloyds Register (LR), and Joint Bulk Carrier Project (JBP) team composed of the remaining members of IACS are concurrently working towards the establishment of IACS Common Structural Rules which are announced to be implemented for the ships contracted for construction after 1 April 2006. The Rules will cover the entire hull structure in a consistent and logical manner, including hull envelope, transverse and longitudinal bulkheads, main supporting members and local structure; and fore and aft ends. These will lead to common scantlings by incorporating the coherent framework and including some new approaches, where there is sufficient confidence and justification for their adoption. The best and most transparent methods will be selected and will be subjected to a major programme of testing and calibration to ensure that the rules are internally consistent and reflect service experience. By doing this, the international maritime stakeholders will benefit from being equipped with commonly recognised standards that have been developed using the combined research capabilities and experience of all IACS members with active input from industry and that have a greater transparency of the technical background. The cost of dealing with a number of similar but different sets of rules will be considerably reduced. Several basic principles employed in these projects are: a design life of 25 years based on the analyses of the risk acceptance level for the existing casualty records, net scantling approach which clearly shows the structural capabilities needed to ensure structural integrity plus corrosion additions needed to be maintained against corrosive environment during maintenance and structural renewal limits,
565
dynamic loading based on the equivalent design wave concepts of 10-8 probability level in North Atlantic environmental conditions is employed in the new sets of rules, buckling and ultimate strength requirements for hull girders and structural members are defined and fatigue life requirements of 25 years against North Atlantic dynamic loading is defined. The draft rules, technical backgrounds, ramification test results, supporting guidance and additional materials such as rule calculation software are available at the websites: www.jtprules.com and www.jbprules.com 3.2.2 Ramification study and harmonization of two set of rules
IACS classification societies, after the establishment of their first draft rules, carried out ramification studies on what would be the consequential changes for ship designers and ship-owners. Industrial consultation was undertaken at various levels such as external review groups formed by the two pilot project groups, tripartite meetings (round table meetings among shipyards, ship-owners and classification societies), technical conferences and meetings with related organizations of major shipbuilders and ship-owners. During this consultation many comments were received. The major concerns raised were; the weight increase due to the implementation of the new set of rules, which are identified by participating classification societies as a maximum of 4% for tankers and bulk carriers are not justified since there is no evidence of damages due to lack of design scantlings; new rules have to meet goal based standards of IMO which are yet to be developed and harmonization of the two rule sets are not completed whereas the industry and IMO anticipate the same design concepts for both tankers and bulk carriers.
In this respect, IACS has devoted itself to harmonizing the two set of rules by forming the ad hoc working group on rule technical harmonization. It is generally understood that the basic design parameters, such as design life and the net scantling approach based on the corrosion additions extracted from the database of existing ships thickness measurement results, are successfully harmonized but not yet in the detailed requirements. IACS, however, is believed to be utilising their longstanding resources of expertise and experience in such a way as to maximize their effort as they are the only international organization to develop and establish international standards that are to be used by all related maritime industries. The technical cooperation of major shipbuilding nations in East Asia is also important when considering the amount of new buildings built in this region. However the wide spread of positions taken by stakeholders, mainly due to the differences of interests of the party where they belong and different operating pattern of the vessels, has resulted in the new draft rules
566
being not uniformly acceptable to all stakeholders in terms of the spirit of engineering principles and of safety and environmental protection... It is considered that the major blocking factors for harmonization of the two set of rules are wave load calculations, fatigue calculation procedures and ultimate strength of hull girder and buckling of local structures. 3.2.3 Other harmonization initiatives
Other than the major initiatives outlined above, IACS has for many years sponsored projects for harmonizing rules in specific areas. The most relevant recent initiative has been in the area of polar shipping. In 1996 IACS established an Ad-Hoc group to establish Unified Requirements for Polar Ships (AHG/PSR). The efforts of the group has resulted in three sets of unified requirements for Polar Ships which are at various stages of completion: Polar Class Descriptions and Application (UR11), Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships (UR 12), and Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships (UR 13). The application of the rules contained in this set of URs is intended for the design of steel ships navigating in ice-infested polar waters, except icebreakers. The other area in which IACS has been active is in bulk carrier safety. Four new unified requirements have been published that address various aspects of bulk carrier structural design: UR S26 Strength And Securing Of Small Hatches In Way Of The Foredeck Or Forecastle UR S27 Equipment UR S30 UR S31 Holds
ISO
Strength Requirements For Foredeck Fittings And Cargo Hatch Cover Securing Assessment Of Side Shell Frames In Single-Skin Cargo
3.3
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards has been very active over the last 10 to 15 years in developing standards for offshore structures and associated equipment for the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries. This work has been performed under the aegis of ISO/TC 67, a committee comprising 18 countries and several observer members. This committee supervises the work of a number of working groups on fixed steel structures, concrete structures, floating structures, weight control, jack-ups, arctic structures, and marine operations. There is a close relationship between ISO and the American Petroleum Institute (API), a pioneer in the development of standards for offshore structures. The API administers the ISO/TC 67 secretariat on behalf of the main national US standards organization, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). As discussed below under the section on the API, ISO has adopted many of the relevant API standards.
567
The primary series of offshore structures standards published by ISO are in the 19900 series and readers are directed to the ISO/TC 67 website (http:/committee.api.org/standards/isotc67/index.html) for a complete list of standards that have been published or are in the process of being developed. It seems clear that in the arena of offshore structure design many national bodies have adopted, or will adopt, ISO standards. According to Mangiavacchi (2005b) the countries of the European Union (EU) will automatically adopt ISO standards. This is also essentially true of the equivalent NORSOK standards although it appears that NORSOK will continue to publish its own standards. Relevant NORSOK will be based on ISO standards augmented with provisions that are specific to Norwegian requirements. The long term role of API as a standards making body for offshore structures is unclear since many of the relevant API standards are being adopted by ISO with APIs active cooperation. Currently ISO is actively developing two documents on station keeping systems and monohulls, semisubmersibles and spars (ISO 2003, ISO 2004)
3.4 US Navy & UK Navy
Due to the increasing constraints on defense budgets and the consequent difficulty and impracticality of maintaining purely naval design standards, there is a current move to delegating responsibility to Classification Societies, at least for design and assessment of structure with regard to non-military specific loads. The UK now has a set of commercially maintained rules for the classification of military ships; these take the form of Lloyds Register Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships. Although based on Lloyds commercial ship rules, the naval rules have been developed in a way which allows traditional UK MOD approaches to design to be used and accepted. The rules are comprised of Unclassified and Confidential parts, the latter being specifically to deal with sensitive details of the military loading environment. The ISSC 2006 Specialist committee V.5, Naval Ship Design, will provide further detail in this respect. To date, the Type 23 class of frigates has been largely accepted into Class by Lloyds Register and the rules are being actively used in the design and construction of the Type 45 destroyers and future aircraft carrier (CVF). There is an interest in the US Navy in applying commercial standards in an effort to reduce costs. As part of this US Navy and the American Bureau of Shipping have jointly developed the ABS Guide for Building and Classing Naval Vessels. The Guide addresses the bulk of hull, mechanical, electrical, environmental and safety related criteria for the vessels. The US Navy will continue to maintain criteria for the unique military aspects of combatants. The Rules in the ABS guide are currently being used in the design and construction of both the next generation destroyer DD (X) and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a high-speed multi-mission platform ship. Where appropriate and as supported by US public law these Rules will be the technical basis and authorization for ABS certification for selected ship systems and classification of combatant ships. On a similar basis, DNV has a set of naval rules: Rules for High Speed, Light Craft and Naval Craft. The DNV rules are being applied to some British and Danish navy ships and
568
DNV along with LR are recognized naval certification authorities with a considerable degree of delegated responsibility from the UK MOD. Of particular interest is the development by NATO of the Naval Ship Code. The text below describes the project and is taken from the Naval Authority Knowledge Management Office website, www.nakmo.co.uk. Recognising that there is no naval body that is equivalent to IMO and that naval ships are not embraced by the work of IMO, NATO has established a Specialist Team on Naval Ship Safety and Classification. In addition to Navies, Classification Societies through the Naval Ship Classification Association (NSCA) have a standing invitation to attend the meetings of the Specialist Team as active participants. The Specialist Team is tasked with the development of a Naval Ship Code that will provide a cost-effective framework for a naval surface ship safety management system based on and benchmarked against IMO conventions and resolutions. The Specialist Team has established a Goal Based Approach to the development of the Naval Ship Code and is now developing each chapter in turn. This folder in the NAS library contains the latest documents including NSC Chapters, related guidance and records of meetings.
4.
RECENT UPDATES: REGULATIONS, RULES AND CODES IN DESIGN
4.1
API
The API produced perhaps the first structural design standard for the design of offshore structures (American Petroleum Institute, 1969), often referred to in its abbreviated form as API RP 2A. This was intended for application in the Gulf of Mexico but has since been adapted for use in various parts of the world. It has undergone numerous updates and revisions and the 22nd edition is due for publication in 2006. A reliability-based version using partial safety factors, or load and resistance factors (LRFD), was published in 1993 (American Petroleum Institute, 1993). According to Mangiavacchi (2005a) the document has not be used in the design of platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, which is the region where the standard was originally intended for application. Nevertheless, the LRFD version, after the development of region-specific factors, has been applied in the UK sector of the North Sea.
569
The 22nd edition of API RP 2A will see substantial revisions over earlier versions. Perhaps the most interesting of these revisions will be the development of a new document, API RP 2SIM Structural Integrity Management. While in-service issues were addressed in earlier versions of API RP 2A this is the first time the very important subject of in-service structural maintenance is addressed in such a comprehensive manner. A key trend evident in offshore oil exploration and production has been the increased activity in deeper waters. At these increased depths the fixed platform designs are less and less viable. To address this challenge in an economical way other offshore structure configurations have been developed. Among them are the tension leg platform (TLP) and a variety of spar designs. In regard to the former API developed the RP 2T, Planning, Designing, and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms, first published in 1987. This document is currently undergoing revision and will be incorporated into an ISO document due for publication in 2006. The document, designated ISO/DIS 19904-1, will cover monohulls, semi-submersibles and spars as well. In addition to the activities outlined the API is updating documents on design and analysis of stationkeeping systems for floating structures (API RP 2SK), stability design of cylindrical shells (API Bulletin 2U), and design of flat plate structures (API Bulletin 2V).
4.2 OCIMF
International Industry Organizations have their supplementary requirements to designing and exploitation of ships. Among them are OCIMF, Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO), INTERCARGO, Society of International Gas Tanker & Terminal Operators Ltd (SIGTTO), Oil Spill Response Ltd (OSRL), International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF), International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), International Salvage Union (ISU), etc. The requirements to design, systems, equipment and supply of oil tankers are contained in the International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT), guidance of OCIMF Recommendations for Oil Tanker Manifolds & Associated Equipment, Ship-to-Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum), Anchoring Systems and Procedures for Large Tankers and others.
4.3 National authorities/flag, port, & coastal States
Many administrations issue their own rules regulating different aspects of designing and operating ships. Such rules are invoked to boost solution of the problems on environmental protection and human life at sea with account of national specific features and priorities. According (see, Egorov, 2002a) to Bulletin of the Ministry of Transport of Canada No. 03/2002 dated 5th April 2002, in ports of Canada there are implemented strict restrictions on non-standard alternating and blocked loads of bulk-carriers. For the ports of the Great Lakes, with account of specificity of cargoes, it concerns grain. Construction documentation is issued for full usage of the cargo-bearing capacity/cargo-space capacity. With account of the fact, that grain is relatively light cargo, the limiting factor, as a rule, is just the cargospace capacity. The specific feature of ports of Canada is loading grain at limited draft (less
570
than draft by load mark) or loading of the limited lot of cargo. Accordingly, there appear free volumes in holds, which are arranged either by the way of alternated (pseudo "ore") loading or by the way of blocked one. Such loading cases are, as a rule, simply absent in the construction documentation (for drafts lower than load mark). Unfortunately, far from being valid for some bulk-carriers all holds cannot withstand an external loading at absence of backpressure of cargo at these drafts. Special Japan Regulation KAISA 520 for the ship transporting spent nuclear fuel (SNF) supplement the requirements of the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packed Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code). In fact (Brachet, Y., Vallette-Fontaine, M., 2000) KAISA regulation requires that the ship resists to transversal collision with a T2 tanker having a displacement of 23400 tons and a speed of 15 knots. Beside this, some associations of the States can elaborate the special rules and directives. At designing of ships for transportation of dangerous goods, the requirements of the relevant international agreements, regulating such transportations, are superimposed over the customary limitations. For example, river-sea gas-carriers fall under the simultaneous action of the requirements of the International Code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (IGC Code) as the sea-going ships, and the requirements of the International Carriage on Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways (ADN) as the river ships, this making their design the unique one in comparison with conventional sea-going gas-carriers. The general arrangement of the ship, location of the transversal and longitudinal bulkheads is determined by both the requirements of ADN and requirements of the IGC Code to floodability and damaged stability (see Table 4). In particular, for the river-sea gas-carriers of the assumed damage of side and bottom are larger, since the probability of a contact with a soil, berths and other ships on the river is much higher. Besides this, for the given vessel the requirement of the IGC Code to a damage stability are verified at location of the damage in any place lengthwise of the ship between the bulkheads of compartmentation (i.e. one-compartment floodability), requirements of ADN - at location of damages in any place lengthwise of the ship (i.e. two-compartment floodability).
571
Table 4. THE SIZES OF EMERGENCY DAMAGES, RATED FOR AN INVESTIGATED VESSEL

Size of the damage IGC Code AND rules
Side Extension by length, m Extension by breadth, m Extension by vertical, m 1/3 L12/3 1/5 B1 From BP unrestrictedly upward Bottom Extension by length, m - on the site 0.3L1 from FP - on the rest part Extension by breadth, m Extension by vertical, m B1 / 6 3.00 0.10 L 0.10 L upward 0.10 L 0.79 From BP urestrictedly
1/3 L1 2/3 5.00
5.
DESIGN OF SHIPS AND SPECIAL SERVICE SHIPS
5.1
Introduction
This chapter considers the design of ship structures taking account of the extraordinary requirements of special service ships and novel hulls. The problems of the application of a traditional approach to novel requirements will be discussed, paying particular attention to how the benefits of a novel approach can be realized without compromising the safety of design and operation.
5.2 Design principles
Rationally based (mathematical) definition of the design problem for novel designs is mandatory and it implies careful selection of the design variables, design performance parameters (or design quality measures) and the corresponding preference structure. The rationally based design process includes formulation of a decision support (DS) methodology and a multi-criteria problem solution strategy (MADM, MODM) including sensitivity assessment. Design performance parameters can be divided into design attributes (minimized or maximized) and design constraints (crisp or fuzzy). Design attributes are converted into
572
objectives when the direction of quality improvement is specified or they are combined into value or utility functions for final design selection. The aim in the design process is to improve a ships safety together with all other design tasks (e.g. speed, performance and cargo capacity per unit cost). As the safety level that has to be met by a design as such is unknown and a methodology for a quantitative assessment is not yet established, and equivalent safety approach has been developed and adopted for the time being. Equivalent safety means here, that an approach is used that allows a qualitative comparison of different ship designs with respect to their safety in severe seas (Cramer & Tellkamp, 2002). Solution of rationally based design problems requires implementation of the design principles through two basic mathematical calculation models: (1) a design analysis model for technical (response, weight, safety, reliability, robustness) and economical performance evaluations; (2) a synthesis model including interactive decision-making supported with design utilities (optimization and sensitivity modules, databases, graphics, etc.).
5.3 Design variables, design performance parameters and uncertainty involved
Structure-related design variables include scantlings, material, topology and geometry of the structure. Since the latter two groups are usually fixed, except in shape optimization problems, the first two are commonly taken as free design variables. Design variables span the design space where each design is represented as a point and the dimensionality of the problem is given by the number of variables (nv). Conceptual structural designs typically have nv ~ 40 and preliminary/initial designs require nv ~ 200/1000. Uncertainty of the structure related design variables comes from material, scantlings and construction characteristics. Design performance parameters are derived from the operational requirements of the ship; uncertainty will be reduced in proportion to the accuracy with which these can be defined. In some cases, the operational requirement and hence the design parameters can be very clearly defined, for example an inland ferry which is expected to operate on a single route for its entire design life. In other cases, the requirement is much more general and uncertain such as the case of a ship required to operate anywhere in the world over a period of 20 to 30 years where the operational requirement may change significantly during that period. Due to all involved uncertainties the corresponding measures of robustness can be added to design attributes/objectives.
5.4 Design criteria: attributes, objectives, constraints
Design criteria must be based on achieving feasibility i.e. acceptable probability of avoiding the failure of serviceability and ultimate limit states (design constraints) whilst achieving an efficient solution to the operational requirements (design objectives). Feasible designs must also satisfy production and functionality requirements, min-max bounds (Sec. 5.5) and other constraints. There are elements of the subspace of feasible designs in the design space. The design space can be multiply connected (containing holes e.g. clusters of infeasible designs close to resonance in vibration problems) and some of the variables are discrete (number of
573
stiffeners, standard profiles) destroying continuity and strongly influencing the problem solution. The new generation of decision-making techniques (GA, FFD etc.) override these problems at the expense of computing time. The counterpart of the design space is the attribute space spanned by design attributes and design objectives. For each feasible design (point) in the design space the design performance parameters (attribute values) define points in the attribute space. Note that several designs from design space may map into a single design in attribute space (same weight, cost, etc.) implying that for the given performance parameters there are multiple solutions. In addition, the values of design variables and attributes are not mutually comparable and have different units. Therefore, design and attribute spaces are not metric spaces i.e. there is no distance measure among designs for their comparison, with respect to some prescribed target design, except for each attribute separately. The final design selection will require formulation of metric attribute space and/or composite measures of design quality. However, in view of the uncertainties involved, only the correct order of designs with respect to quality measure should be maintained, not its numeric value. The philosophy of Design for Safety is that safer, and more cost-beneficial, ships will result provided that safety issues are integrated as a performance parameter in the design process at the early design stages. The principal question is how and by what means to integrate safety in the design process. The philosophy advocates that the pertinent elements of safety and technical issues from the operational phase are modeled prior to having these issues synthesized into an integrated whole utilizing e.g. fault/event trees (Tellkamp & Oestvik, 2003). The DFS philosophy aims to facilitate the development of the DFS methodology by linking utilization of technical tools, safety assessment deriving from risk-based methodologies/theories, and design activities and issues. The underlying theme is that safety assessment will enable safe-ship-designing to be formalized as a process within an iterative procedure that allows a two-way dynamic link between technological developments and design, where design constraints are defined by the process of safety assessment. The procedure, on the one hand, gathers and assimilates technical information, prioritizes safety issues, identifies practical and cost-effective safeguards and sets requirements and constraints for the design process. On the other hand, it provides feedback from the design process to stimulate refinement of tools, in the light of experience gained from implementation and/or practical applications. The approach adopted reflects the ever-greater societal demand for safe and environmental friendly transport, which may lead to future requirements for safety assessments to be performed in the ship design process. Important aspects are the metrics used. Obviously, for calculating trade-offs of design measures and for risk balancing, a common metric is necessary (Cramer & Tellkamp, 2003). Metrics can be classified according to their suitability for identification, ranking, ratio of differences and ratio of values. Today, a mixture of four systems to determine safety exist to keep risks within acceptable limits (Tellkamp & Oestvik, 2003) that rely on prescribing design specifics, methodologies, physical properties, and risk levels.
574
These approaches represent different stages of knowledge, available methodologies, and different levels of risk perception in the society. Most rules and regulations are based on the first three concepts given in the list above. One major drawback of some of these rules is that they reflect knowledge, ship types, and calculation methods from the past. In stability rules, for example, the calculation of lever arm curves are performed for calm water and with fixed trim only.
5.5 Rule minima constraints-impact on design
In order to allow for uncertainty in the design and manufacturing process and subsequent operation, a number of minimum requirements are imposed by classification societies. These minima take the form of minimum section modulus, minimum thickness, etc. In the majority of applications, this approach represents a sensible method of ensuring a safe design, within the constraints of the manufacturing process, in the face of the obvious uncertainty inherent to a ships operational environment. Unfortunately in certain circumstances the rule minima can end up being the main design driver, stifling innovation and producing a less optimal end product. Classification societies now provide for a first principles approach to structural design via the direct calculation route to classification. However, the design acceptance criteria are still restricted by the imposition of rule minima and it is in this area that their application is at its most contentious and constraining.
5.6 Acceptance criteria also including failure criteria and accidents
The failure modes commonly experienced by ship structures are related to the imposed cyclic loading such as fatigue or due to an extreme event leading to some form of structural instability. The effects of cyclic loading and the operational environment lead to degradation of the condition of the vessel rather than failure to meet an ultimate limit state design requirement. Degradation influences the likelihood of ultimate failure due to a given imposed loading. Classification societies traditionally require the immediate repair of cracks to avoid the risk of brittle fracture. In reality, modern ship steels are generally of higher quality than those which led to a high incidence of catastrophic brittle fractures in the Liberty ships (Brown 1952). As a consequence it appears that long cracks can often be tolerated without total failure of the vessel (ABS 2000c). Probabilistic methods (Sumpter and Kent 2004) can be used to predict the risk of brittle fracture as a function of crack length and ship operating temperature. It is shown that the risk of brittle fracture remains low as long as the ship operating temperature exceeds to the Charpy 27 Joule temperature of the steel. This opens the possibility of delaying crack repairs until a convenient maintenance period. Accidents can be categorized as either those that lead to loss of the ship or those that cause structural damage and degradation but do not immediately lead to loss of the ship. The likelihood of both must be addressed at the design stage with the result that accidental loss of the ship is reduced to an acceptable probability. It is in the latter situation that a further
575
decision process must come into play; what to do in order to get the ship to a safe haven for repair. In this respect it is possible to use a combination of load and motion prediction, fracture mechanics and ultimate strength analyses to provide useful quantifiable guidance as to the options available. One such method has been developed by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), QinetiQ and the Graphics Research Corporation (GRC) and is implemented in GRCs Seagoing Paramarine to provide on-board guidance to ships crews. The existing classification strength standards of the transport ship hull members are based on application of assumed loads from the design actions. Among them are loads due to the sea (static component, sea roughness, dynamic impacts), cargo, ballast, stores (static component, acceleration at motions, dynamic impacts of liquid cargo at partial filling), overboard water at emergency filling and at tests, and ice. Such standards are determined for initial states, which are assumed to be called operational ones (stipulated in the operational documentation). It is considered, that diverse effects, to which the hull can be subject during a 20 to 30 year lifecycle existences, are either taken into account by special limitations - minimum thickness values and section modulus of cross sections, or those effects are off-design. For example, assumed operations with clamshells result in increase of the minimum thickness of the double bottom plating by 3 to 4 mm. There are requirements to a flat keel and dock stanchions of bulkheads, related with loads at scheduled docking of ships without cargo, etc. Stranding and loads at mooring of ships in ports are categorized for sea-going ships into the off-design conditions. Of course, the diversity of actual practices of ships operation is hardly contained in the frameworks of those reasons, which were built up in rules and projects. However gained experience allows us to distinguish a series of effects and conditions, which are often met and which it is possible to take into account at the stages of designing of ship structures and of carrying out of checking calculations of actual hull strength of the existing ships. For example (see, Egorov, 2002a), we design ships with account of requirements to damage trim and stability, contained in SOLAS and MARPOL. With this, the total hull strength (excluding bulk-carriers), especially the decrease of their carrying capacity upon obtaining damages, is not checked. The analysis of a series of actual and hypothetical damages of ships has led to identification of some principal features including: Flooding of fore holds of bulk-carriers (by virtue of heightened corrosive wear under effect of water loads through cracks and pulled-out segments of side shell) result in considerable growth of bending moments in mid-range of the hull (up to 40 to 80 % from that allowed in still water) and shear forces in the region of extremity (up to 30 to 60 % from that allowed in still water), that in interaction with the dynamic factors and deficiencies of the structure can result in severe problems. The flooding of cargo holds of transport ships in mid-range (especially empty) results in significant increase, and sometimes in change of sign, of bending moment in still water. Thus trim and stability are, as a rule, satisfactory. Often such variants of flooding are not considered at all, as least dangerous in conventional representations, in the "Damage Stability Information". But at initial sag such flooding can be dangerous even in still water.
576
At grounding the requirements to residual total strength are met, as a rule, up to the moment of failure of the inner-bottom members and plating. Most dangerous are the situations, when the zones of the greatest forces in still water and zones of hull damages coincide. For collisions it is a break hole in a middle part at initial condition of sag. For grounding application of the soil reaction in the middle part of the hull at initial hog. The most dangerous in terms of damage strength are the cases of an alternated and irregular loading of ships, when there is a large initial draft, from one side, and from the other one - there are large empty volumes in compartments.
In similar situations the check of total hull strength of ships is required, which are subjected to the requirements of the SOLAS with account of changes of load in still water (this is already being done for bulk-carriers) and reduction of carrying capacity of damaged sections. Beside this, for the sea-going ships the probability of grounding is higher, than that of collision, thus the latter is subject to rating within the framework of the rules, while the former is not. Traditionally rules of classification and construction are elaborated, first of all, for ships of an unlimited navigation area. Their loads and design conditions are extrapolated on ships of the lower, by navigation area, classes.
5.7 Consideration of failure modes for novel structures
Novel hull forms such as trimarans and pentamarans are currently being presented along with developments of more conventional hulls that push traditional boundaries of performance. In the development of such hull structures it is difficult to ensure the adequate consideration of all likely load cases and consequent failure modes. Additionally, considerable effort is required to give confidence in predicted loads in order to avoid the design being rendered unviable by excessive safety factors against failure. By definition there can be little or no historical data available upon which to base the development of structural scantlings for such structures. Initial scantlings and weight estimates must therefore be derived from engineering judgment based on a careful assessment of likely operational parameters and algorithmic approaches based on previous similar hulls. A rule-based approach for trimarans hulls is presented by Lloyds Register of Shipping in their Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Trimarans, which were accepted for publication at the Lloyds Naval Ships Technical Committee, May 2005. Additionally, the development of numerical load prediction tools provides a convenient approach to the derivation of preliminary load cases based on a given hull shape and weight distribution. These in turn can be applied to simple hand calculations or finite element models to gain an understanding of load paths and subsequent refinements to the structural scantlings. Once a relatively final structural design is established a more rigorous assessment of loading conditions can be carried out using model tests and both frequency and time-domain load predictions. With this comes the difficulty of ensuring that all likely failure loads are captured since even with the relatively high performance computers of today it is not possible to simulate several lifetimes of operation in the non-linear time domain. The
577
classification societies present several methods based on the interrogation of operational profiles which often take the form of probability scatter tables of wave height and period.
5.8 Preference structure for attributes, intra- and inter- attribute preferences
Realistic decision making must include subjectivity of decision makers (different stake holders points of view) particularly for novel designs. Objectives and measures of design quality are best represented in the attribute space but decision making is complicated due to lack of metrics. The first subjective level is the determination of preference for each objective (i.e. more is better, less is better). On the design level the design A is preferred to (dominates) design B if it is better than B in all objectives. The better set can be defined with respect to given design A if all set elements are preferred to A. Conversely, the worse set can be formed containing all designs that are worse than A in all objectives i.e. dominated by it. Finally, the set of non-dominated designs is defined as a set of designs that have no better set, hence they are not dominated by any design. Alternatively, design is non-dominated if it is better than any other feasible design in at least one objective. It is obvious that no metric is involved in filtering of non-dominated designs. Only non-dominated or Pareto designs (usually only a small fraction of feasible designs) are of interest to a designer since they dominate all other feasible designs. Non-dominated designs that are identified in the attribute space have corresponding design variable descriptions (unique, multiple) in the design space. Subjective metric space is the transformation of the attribute space via inclusion of further stake holders subjective preferences/prejudices. The introduction of a metric is possible when all attribute values are normalized and also scaled to their relative importance, implying comparisons of designs within the same attribute (intra-attribute preferences) and determination of relative importance of different attributes (inter-attribute preferences). Intra-attribute preferences: Subjective comparison of various designs for a given attribute can be performed using fuzzy functions for re-definition of design attribute values. An attribute value is transformed to the stakeholders satisfaction value (or membership grade) with range [0-1]. The fuzzy approach softens the sharp transition from acceptable to unacceptable attribute values (uncertainty measures included). At the same time the values of design attributes are normalized making them commensurable. Four principal types are named attracting, ascending, descending and averting (Table 5). By selecting proper type and parameters of the fuzzy function it is easy to express designers aspirations (Refs.).
578
ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria TABLE 5 MEMBERSHIP GRADE FUNCTIONS
-type - Attracting
1.00 1.00
S-type - Ascending
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00 0 25 50 75 100
0.50
0.25
0.00 0 25 50 75 100
U-type - Averting
1.00 1.00
Z-type - Descending
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00 0 25 50 75 100
0.50
0.25
0.00 0 25 50 75 100
TABLE 6 PREFERENCES (SAATY'S METHOD) pi preferred (row) 1 3 5 7 9 Pairwise Preference Equally important Slightly preferred Strongly preferred Demonstrably preferred Absolutely preferred pj (column) 1 1/3 1/5 1/7 1/9
Inter-attribute preferences: Determination of the subjective relative importance of different attributes (performance parameters) is often expressed using weighting factors. In this respect Saaty's method, based on preference between attributes i and j is the most common one. As shown in Table 6, the rating of preference is from 1 to 9. The consistent relative significance of attributes is obtained as an eigenvector of the subjective preference matrix. The matrix is formed as a result of pair wise comparisons of attributes. The Preference Matrix P= [Pij] is defined as:
Pij =
pi Importance of attribute i ; i, j = 1, = pj Importance of attribute j

NA (number of attributes).
579
The Importance Vector reads p = {pi}. If the designer is fully consistent the following relation is obtained:
P . p = NA . p.
In the case of the inconsistency of judgment the eigenvector = {wi} corresponding to the largest eigenvalue (max ) of the problem: (P - I) p = 0 ; I = unit matrix, is normalized and used as a vector of relative weights of attributes. Consistency of the preference may be estimated by the criterion: C = (max-NA) / (NA-1) < 0.1. Alternatively, the normalized geometric mean of the row of the preference matrix may be used as weight : wi = (j=1,..NA pi j)1/NA.
5.9 Subjective and objective decision-making and risk
The difficulties in assessing utility functions can be counterbalanced in several ways. First of all, let us note that there exist a certain number of procedures to elicit them, using comparisons between lotteries. However, it is well known that these methods (and the resulting utility function) are often the subject of various biases, notably because of the fact that people generally transform probabilities. That is, they tend to underestimate small probabilities and overestimate large probabilities. The consequences of this are twofold: on the one hand, the expected utility model does not adequately describe actual choices, even if the axioms on which it relies make it adequate for prescription; this led to the development since the early 80s of the so-called Rand-Dependent Utility (RDU) model, that has a much better descriptive power, specifically by using transformed probabilities instead of a simple expected utility. On the other hand, the insights gained through the development of the RDU model have been applied to help improve the elicitation of utility functions that, in a prescriptive way, are to be used in the expected utility formula. Another way in which decision analysis techniques have been criticized is their black-box approach. Namely, people often do not feel comfortable having their own preferences encoded in a function (even if, thanks to their experience and to corporate culture, these preferences are often in line with what should be decided at the company level), which also explains why other decision-aiding tools, such as Cost-Benefit Analysis have also been used. These techniques in turn suffer from a number of disadvantages, associated with the monetization of non-market objects (Human life, the environment), that is often not deemed acceptable on political grounds. This led to a methodological proposal (that remains to be finalized) presented in Vivalda and Lassagne (2001), and, in another context, by Beaudouin et al. (2004) where these two tools could be combined in order to benefit from their respective advantages while addressing their limitations. Decision-making implies composition of all subjective preferences. For each attribute it can be achieved as e.g. the product of the fuzzy attribute function and the corresponding weighting factor and it can be used for construction of the subjective attribute space. Updated for averting or attracting transformation, the criteria functions also enable the
580
natural more is better construction of Pareto frontier in problems of avoidance or seeking to a given target value. In most cases the subjective metric space is constructed a posteriori and interactively with the decision maker. It implies selection of different fuzzy functions and importance measures after the ordinary Pareto frontier is generated, requiring extensive computations with an analysis model. The environment for selection of a preferred design requires thus only a fast subjectivity transformation of given designs in the attribute space. The assessment of influence of subjectivity parameters on its choice can also be assessed. More demanding is the construction of value and utility functions as functions of design attributes. The iso-value contours can be visualized in design, attribute or subjective attribute space. These contours, may exhibit multiple peaks although the optimum in constrained problems is often achieved on boundaries of feasible regions. Distance norms (Lp-metrics) are commonly used as value functions. To make the final selection of the preferred design, the value functions are calculated for all designs in the subjective attribute space. A set of parallel axes for all candidate designs can be displayed to facilitate final subjective decision. Parallel axes can also correspond to each of the value functions and the lines connecting specific designs on those axes are used to facilitate ranking of designs. Sensitivity analysis, Robustness and Stochastic Characteristics: For technical systems the existence of a solution is often guaranteed but not its uniqueness and stability. The stability of a solution/performance should be investigated with respect to design variables and design parameters that can exhibit stochastic nature. Sensitivity analysis is considered a standard part of any good engineering procedure. Robustness is defined as insensitivity (or stability) with respect to uncontrollable parameters and is becoming a standard concept, particularly for innovative designs. Many input parameters (e.g. loads, material data, etc.) held constant during the optimization process, are subject to uncertainties causing variations of the values in the criteria set and/or violation of constraints (unfeasible designs). They can also be costly to control. One way is to introduce safety margins on the constraints, but this leads to a reduction of the design space. Consequently there is need for the harmonization of desired attribute values with the desired robustness. Preference in cases of uncertain outcomes is defined as follows: The stochastic preference is based on comparison of CDF values for given ranges of variables / parameters. Mean valuevariance preference is based on moment generating function. For some CDF it is unique. It leads to maximization of mean and minimization of standard deviation. Probability preference is based on output probability but Prob(attr.j attr.i) is not the Pareto preference. Utility preference is based on expectations of utility function.
581
The robustness measure developed by Taguchi is the ratio of the mean of the attribute value (ymi) to the standard deviation (yi) resulting from uncertain parameter values. In fact, it is the ratio of predictability versus unpredictability. For the 'nominal is the best' type of attribute, the signal-to-noise ratio reads: SN= 20 log( ymi / mi ) However, an incoherent answer can also be obtained since the ratio is a function of the attribute's mean and variance, i.e. sometimes conflicting measures of position and dispersion. It may be argued that separate use of mean and variance is advantageous in search for the 'design window' where design is robust and effectively controlled by design variables. Taguchi deserves credit for suggesting that experimental design techniques such as fractional factorial designs (FFD) could be used in engineering design methodology. Standard deviation can also be used as the primary measure of robustness, with Taguchis SN ratio as an auxiliary check. Design with attribute values corresponding to minimum variance levels should also be investigated. The following demonstrates imbedding of robustness analysis into design problem formulations: (1) post-processing of non-dominated designs with respect to the robustness attribute; (2) direct inclusion of the robustness attribute in the filtering of non-dominated designs; and (3) combination of steps (1) and (2) by calculating the robustness attribute value only in the final generation of the Pareto frontier by simultaneously calculating the attribute and its measure of robustness (using FFD). Reliability measure as design attribute for novel design concepts: Only relative ordering of designs is needed, not exact failure probabilities. Element reliability measures., System reliability measures.. (only realistic, beta unzipping, branch and bound). Upper Ditlevsens bound as an efficient design reliability measure.. Sensitivity of RM to the statistical parameters.
In summary, the principal steps of rational design selection using a multi-attribute environment are given by: Determination of attribute values (cost, weight, robustness, reliability, redundancy, ultimate carrying capacity, etc.) Interactive definition of the preference information regarding relationship between attributes. Selection of attribute type (original, membership grade). Normalization of attribute values (vector, linear scale, fuzzy functions): Extraction of weight factors from subjective preference matrix. (Saatys method, least squares method, entropy method). The main problem is to achieve consistency of the
582
preference definition. Removal of implicit weighting by the post-optimal analysis of the attained levels of attributes for generated non-dominated designs. Calculation of L1, L2 (Euclid) and L (Chebyshev) norms with respect to given ideal point / prescribed target for all non-dominated designs, using selected attribute weights. Construction of other value functions, if required. Stratification of the set of non-dominated solutions into layers according to the value function value Extraction of preferred solutions according to the given preference structure.
6.
DESIGN OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
6.1
Introduction
Offshore structures have been designed according to several guidelines, such as rules by American Petroleum Institute and classification societies like DnV, ABS, and the Korean Registry of Shipping (KR). However, as the water depths for operating these structures increase, the needs for new design principles and criteria and following R&D for implementation tools for such criteria, along with the needs for direct-analysis-based approaches increase. The industry transitions from fixed type offshore structures to that of floating types are very common. The most technically advanced floating offshore structures include Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO), Tension Leg Platforms (TLP), and Very Large Floating Structures, (VLFS, e.g., floating airports and floating marine resorts). Among these, FPSO is the main target of developing a safer and more efficient design. R&D works and associated design improvements for FPSO are major activities around the world, very actively conducted by most of the designers in shipyards.
6.2 Design advances in major offshore structures
Use of FPSOs has drastically increased around the world. The classification societies provided necessary rules to design and to assess the integrity. FPSOs are currently built mostly in South Korea and Japan and where the designers of shipyards develop innovative design improvement and skills. One of the main problems these designers face is nonlinear problems and associated design criteria. Choi et al predicted rolling performance for a barge-type FPSO, and the evaluation of correct nonlinear roll damping which can be used for more sophisticated scantling of the structural members. In this paper, the roll motion RAO was deduced by model tests in the wave condition of wideband spectrum. In numerical calculations, the quadratic damping was considered equivalent to the linear damping using the results of free roll decay test. Stansberg and Kristiansen (2004) investigated physical mechanisms behind green water events on FPSOs in severe storm wave, in particular wave nonlinearities and crest amplifications in the bow region in head seas were studied and wave hull interaction was identified. Neto and Estefen (2004) proposed safe measures in the special case of risks due to the collision of supply vessel to FPSO, resulting in better prediction of the structural
583
behavior of the FPSO. Ideal Structural Unit Method, ISUM, was used in the analysis of ultimate strength and available lifetime of hull for a FPSO by Zhang and Guo (2003) and the corrosion was found to be an influential factor on the structure. A VLFS, on the otherhand, is a novel structure for which the global structural integrity is more important than local behavior in design. Recent research on VLFS has shown that a hydro-elastic analysis is a prerequisite for evaluating structural integrity and determining the design parameters. Though much research has been carried out on VLFS and hydro elastic analyses during the last decade, the practical information for yard structural designs and design experience seems to be insufficient. Hong et al. (2004a) carried out an intensive hydro-elastic analysis for a wide range of sizes of pontoon type VLFS and environmental conditions such as wave conditions and water depth changes. They aimed to build up an initial design guide for determining global structural stiffness of mat-type VLFS by investigating bending moments and induced structural stresses. A numerically efficient eigenfunction expansion method was adopted for intensive hydro-elastic analysis. It was shown that an appropriate structural stiffness of a mat-type VLFS could be found through the parametric analyses. They also showed that there exists a threshold length below which wave loads and induced structural stiffness do not grow proportionally above the length. Such results can give insight into wave loading and structural response of mat-type VLFS to structural designers. Cho et al (2002) have shown an example of design practice for a VLFS for airport and harbor structure 5300m long and 1800m wide, as well as design procedure for relevant breakwater and connecting bridge between VLFS and the land. They showed concurrent design ways to determine a proper structural arrangement and initial design process including basic hydro-elastic analysis, mooring analysis, wave control analysis. This example shows the comprehensive design principles for a new type of structure and the concepts for complicated offshore structure combination. Park et al. (2004) have shown another example of design practice for a floating marina structure 500m long and 300m wide. To determine a proper structural arrangement and scantlings of the VLFS at the initial design stage, they implemented hydro-elastic analysis first, and then determined structural scantlings based upon the required global stiffness. Calculations of both structural scantling and hydro-elastic analysis for wave condition have been conducted iteratively until the convergence of their results was confirmed. They also found that buckling is a main parameter to define scantling formula for pontoon type VLFS. Hong et al. (2004b) have shown that the hydro-elastic analysis using a plate element model gives sufficiently accurate results for assessment of global structural integrity compared to results using detailed finite element shell model. They also showed that a consideration of elastic deformation in analysis of static structural analysis gives a dramatic decrease in structural scantling due to counter balance of buoyancy proportional to deformation. Kada and Fujita (2003) carried out the hydro-elastic response of a VLFS and found that the wave length of the structure vibration modes at a center part of the structure is almost equal to that of the natural frequency of the structure which takes into account the effect of
584
buoyancy in the vicinity of the incident wave. In general, the loads due to ocean wave are considered the main design parameters governing the global structural safety of Very Large Floating Structure (VLFS). In order to predict the design wave loads accurately, hydro-elastic analysis must be conducted considering the initial global flexural rigidity of the VLFS. However, the static and design wave loads are necessary for explicit derivation of the structural scantling of major members (deck, bottom, side panels, longitudinal/transverse BHD, etc.). Therefore, in order to determine a proper structural arrangement and scantlings of the VLFS at the initial design stage, calculations of both structural scantling and hydro-elastic analysis for wave condition must be conducted iteratively and the convergence of their results must be checked. Relevant researches have been conducted. Kashiwagi (2000) proposed a time-domain calculation method for elastic responses to arbitrary time-dependent external loads, on the basis of a general differential equation of second order including the convolution integral related to memory effects in the hydrodynamic forces. Shiraishi (2003) describes the results of hydraulic model tests of the elastic response of a very large floating structure (VLFS)moored inside a reef in an isolated island. A structural safety assessment of a pontoon-type very large floating structure (VLFS) surrounded by a gravity-type breakwater was carried out by Fujikubo (2003) for extreme wave conditions by considering the damage to the breakwater. Kashiwage (2004) computed the transient elastic deformation of a pontoon-type very large floating structure (VLFS) caused by the landing and take-off of an airplane by the time-domain mode expansion method. In Parks paper (Park et al 2004), based on the case design of a 500x300 m floating marina resort, the details of structural design technique using hydro-elastic analysis are explained and discussed. At first, the environmental conditions and the system requirements for the design of the marina resort are described. The scantling formulas for the major members of pontoon type VLFS are proposed from the local and global design points of view. Considering the design wave loads as well as static design loads, the structural safety is checked iteratively. VLFS is a typical example of a design concept which is based on descriptive rules and direct analysis procedure, since no sufficient experience in both design practice and construction exists. Another design topic in offshore structures is the development of deep-ocean mining system and associated techniques for the operation of devices such as a remote operating vehicle (ROV) or unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV). Design principles and criteria for the design of a structure under more than 600 bars external pressure have no references or experiences to be consulted. Chung et al (2003) showed the ways of designing such structures. Besides this, a marine cable and associated devices for the operation of the ROV are objectives of structural design. A marine cable plays an important part in the operation and signal transmission of a deep-sea unmanned underwater vehicle. The first cable of a deep-sea unmanned vehicle is excited by surface vessel motion and it shows nonlinear dynamic behaviors. Kwon and Park (2004) suggested a numerical method for analyzing the dynamic behavior of the first marine cable and the ROV launcher. Cho, K.N. et al (2004) shows the assessment of dynamic behaviors of cable system due to launching and recovery of UUV, and also, Cho et al
585
(2005) suggested a dynamic analysis scheme of cable system in pre-stressed condition. These numerical analysis of 6000m long cable for a deep-sea ROV indicates design concepts based on descriptive rule and direct analysis procedures to be implemented, as there isnt sufficient experience in design practice.
6.3 Offshore wind farm
Offshore wind farms, consisting of ten to twenty wind turbines at a single offshore location, are being built and operated from 1980s and 90s in Europe, two 600kW wind turbines were built in the Setana Port area in summer, 2003. Offshore wind turbines are also now being considered for use in the United States. The primary external loading are due to wind and load, in some location the floating ice should be taken into consideration. The design requirement, the available offshore data base and the extreme events, including hurricanes and northeast storms were examined in Manwel et al (2004). The experiences of construction and possibility of the offshore wind farms in Japan are discussed in yagi et al (2004). The requirements of foundation design including uplift criteria, ground sensitivity to cyclic loading and foundation stiffness were discussed by Bonnett (2005). Schaumann et al (2004) described different methods for the fatigue design of these structures under wave loading.
7.
OPERATING MATTERS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS
7.1
Stakeholders participation in preliminary design stagesdimensional limitation of ports and waterways, specific requirements & design
Development of the concept of a vessel, selection of main characteristics (length, breadth, depth, anchor point), structural particularities are in many respects determined by the limitations of ports, navigation canals, waterways, and also by the specific features of cargoes, means of loading and unloading. (1) Port and water way limitation (see, Egorov, 2002a, 2003). Sea-River, Coasters and Short Sea Ships should meet the dimensional limitations (by length, breadth, passage draught, air draft) of the inland and port water ways (locks, channels, shipping routes). (2) For ships working in ports of Great Britain and Ireland, where the values of tidal water level variation are very significant, it became customary to unload cargo based on Not Always Afloat But Safely Aground (NAABSA) conditions, i.e. (not always afloat, but safely aground) stranding during a cargo handling. The check of total and local strength is made for hull with account of distributed reaction of a soil - equal mild silt (module of deformation 10 - 25 kg / sq. cm) at different draft losses (up to 3 - 4 m) and values of non-contacting of the bottom and soil up to 30 m with an arbitrary location of lacunas lengthwise. (3) In the number of ports the 10 - ton cubes, made of reinforced concrete, are used at loading of metal scrap for increase of its stowage factor, by dropping them from the height of 2-3 m onto the cargo. Scrap has a lot of fractions, usually of length from 150 to 2000 mm and more, up to written-off shafts of the river-going ships. Protruding parts of
586
such cargo effect the structures surrounding the hull, and subsequently those ships are often found unable to take ballast into tanks within the hull area. The relevant requirements to the sheets thickness value for the double bottom plating are in general close to the strengthening at operation with clamshell. (4) Specific features of technologies for processing of some types of ships enforce them to perform cargo handling in conditions of the roadstead: bulk-carriers of over 100,000 tons deadweight at unloading of grain in Novorossiysk require preliminary unloading at the roadstead of up to 38 thousand tons of cargo for ensuring the passage draft to the grain terminal; near the shore of Libya, as well as in port of Feodosia and at discharge of oil in some ports of USA tankers are taking off oil at mooring buoys in conditions of practically high seas; bulk-carriers at partial unloading of bauxites in Ust-Dunaysk; ships of mixed sailing area in the open roadsteads of the ports of Makhachkala, Aktau, Noushehr, etc.
7.2 Interaction between control algorithms and structural response
Within all branches of marine technology, control systems are being applied in order to improve the performance according to some specified criteria. In a number of cases, the control forces will influence the loads which are imposed on various structural members. One example is high-speed vessels where ride control is applied. Another example is dynamic positioning (DP) of floating marine structures by means of thruster systems. For the latter case, the positioning system typically aims at counteracting the slowly-varying vessel motions. This will influence the loading on the hull as well as the mooring and riser systems if such are present. Control of the floater motion is based on the dynamic equilibrium equation including the effect of the control actions. Like conventional marine vessels, a DP vessel is subjected to time-varying environmental forces (waves, wind and current). But for a DP vessel, it is not desirable to counteract the wave-frequency (WF) movement (small amplitude oscillating motion) caused by first-order wave loads. This is due to compensation of the WF components of the motion requiring excessive thruster modulation. The control action of the propulsion system of a DP vessel is activated by the WF part of the vessel movement caused by current, wind and second mean and slowly varying wave loads. A commonly applied scheme for DP is to apply a fixed target position, which is kept constant throughout a given reference period. However, for vessels where e.g. risers and mooring lines are attached, the target position is only rarely selected based on mechanical failure criteria for such components. Since the slowly developing nature of the forces and motions to be compensated allows a continuous assessment of the safety level, on-line control schemes which makes use of such information can instead be envisaged. The dynamic influence on the vessel are discussed in more detail e.g. in Fossen (2002), Srensen et. al. (1996), Srensen et.al. (2000a and 2000b). The interaction between the control scheme which is applied for dynamic positioning and the structural reliability level of the mooring lines and risers can be illustrated for two
587
specific example cases: the first is the tension in the mooring system of a (futuristic) marine fish farm, and the second is the riser response for a drilling vessel. For the fish farm, a modified Linear-Quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) control scheme is applied, including an extended version of the equilibrium equation for each of the connected floating modules. Further details are found e.g. in Berntsen et. al. (2003 and 2004). DP of a drilling vessel based on PID (Proportional-Integral-Differential) algorithm. The top and bottom angles are considered since these angles are of crucial importance during e.g. drilling and workover operations. For presently implemented systems, a fixed target reference point is typically applied. In the present study, the possibility of reducing the maximum angular response levels by continuously updating the reference point is investigated. Generally, minimization of one of the riser angles (i.e. top or bottom angle) by adjusting the vessel position can only take place at the cost of increasing the other one. Hence, an optimum position should be defined by applying different weights for the two angles. The three following alternatives are relevant for evalutation of such weights: (I) The relative weights are kept fixed (II) The relative weights are determined as functions of the respective reliability indices for each of the two angles. (III) A loss function which is purely expressed in terms of reliability indices is introduced. For a more complete assessment of these alternatives, see e.g. Leira et. al. (2001). Many DP systems rely on multivariable PID algorithms in conjunction with an observer providing state estimates. A key simplifying property in relation to development of control schemes for the riser angles is linearity between the vessel position and angular characteristics: The Cartesian riser angle components are found to be practically linear functions of the surface vessel offset, see Chen (2001). However, it is important to note that as the current changes, a parallel shift of the linear relationships will take place. Different alternative strategies for vessel positioning based on riser criteria are considered in Leira et. al. (2001a). One is based on a loss function which is purely expressed in terms of structural reliability indices. The viability of schemes of this type is explored by numerical simulation for a specific riser configuration. Two basically different reliability index concepts are applied: One of these may be referred to as the correct reliability index, while the second one represents a more practical index since it is much easier to compute and changes more slowly than the first one.
588
7.3
Human elementergonomics
In many industries ergonomic design criteria has been incorporated. These industries have realized that it increases productivity and reduces the incidence of workplace injuries. Historically the maritime industry has not adopted such standards until recently when addressing systems such as integrated bridge layout and console designs. However, fundamental ergonomic design concepts have yet to be adopted in the industry. A particular safety concern is the incidence of slips, trips and falls onboard ship. One P&I club recently reported that more than 1 out of 5 personal injury incidents reported are the result of slips, trips or falls (American Club, 2005). Similar figures are seen in other shore side industries. In addition, some of the ship specific factors that can contribute to a seafarers fatigue are ship design, level of automation, equipment reliability, inspection and maintenance, age of vessel, and physical comfort in work and accommodation spaces. The concepts of ergonomics and human engineering have been considered in other IMO and NGO instruments. For example, at MSC 73 (27 November to 6 December 2000), adopted the Guidelines on Ergonomic Criteria for Bridge Equipment and Layout to assist designers in realizing the objective of improving the reliability and efficiency of navigation (International Maritime Organization, 2002). Also, IACS has prepared the unified interpretation Bridge Design, Equipment Arrangement and Procedures (BDEAP) to cover the principles and aims of SOLAS chapter V, regulation 15 taking into account fundamental ergonomic, human engineering and working environment considerations (IMO, 2004c). There is a clear understanding that human system integration has become a major issue for the maritime industry. There is increasing pressure to build safe and robust ships and to maintain them for their operational life, and this can only be achieved by considering carefully the role of the human element. Continuous feedback from the final users/mariners into the design loop is now being seen as a major contributor to a safe and robust design. It contributes to the reduction of injuries and fatalities during normal operations (the majority of incidents fall into the category slips, trips and falls) and to the reduction of marine accidents by increasing the safety, habitability and maintainability of the ship. The root causes that led to the failure of the human performance to counter the events need to be better identified and understood. This would lead to enhancements in formulation of the rules, design and training the mariners. In that respect training as much as design is a key issue. International standards such as the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, 1978 (as amended in 1995) (STCW 95) does not emphasize sufficiently crisis management or the training of the cognitive skills required to handle such a situation.
589
The international agencies are also working on the integration of the human element in the maritime industry. A Joint Working Group on the role of the Human Element in Maritime Casualties named Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on Human Element was established by IMO in 1991. A number of international rules and regulations have been set up and made mandatory by direct reference in a convention. An example of this is the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which was made mandatory through SOLAS. IMO committee has also issued a number of recommendatory instruments in the forms of resolutions and circulars. The strategic plan for IMO for the six year period 2004 to 2010 contains the following: IMO will lead in enhancing the quality of shipping, by ensuring that all stakeholders understand and accept their responsibilities regarding safe, secure and environmentally sound shipping by developing a chain of responsibility concept among them; and identifying, correlating and evaluating the factors, including human interactions on board ships, that influence safety and security culture, and developing practical and affective mechanisms to address them.
8.
INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE
8.1
Asset integrity management (AIM)
Operating a vessel through it whole life asks for a global maintenance management system. The asset integrity management has become nowadays a strong issue. This covers not only the inspection but also the repair strategies, maintenance strategies as well as data management systems. For ships, this work is mainly devoted to classification societies. For FPSOs, inspection and repair work is different since dry-docking is to be avoided for economical and safety purposes. This requires a more demanding AIM system that oil and gas operator are asking for or using. In Biasotto and Rouhan (2004), a global approach of inspection management for FPSO is presented within the framework of risk based inspection. This covers both quantitative risk-based inspection (RBI) for structural parts of the unit and qualitative RBI for non-structural component, that is to say when quantitative degradation models are not available. It is shown how practical studies using RBI planning can be integrated into AIM systems for an offshore unit.
8.2 Risk based inspection planning
The Risk based inspection planning has received strong development efforts in recent years (Faber et al., 2000; Goyet et al., 2002) and has now reached a mature state. It is nowadays used in the general frame of the asset integrity management system of owners and operators. Sets of papers covering new developments in the RBI have been presented recently (Faber et al., 2004a and 2004b; Ku et al., 2004; Heredia-Zavoni and Santa-Crus, 2004; de Leon and Ortega, 2004; Florentino et al., 2004). These developments underline the needs for more research in particular in the field of cost and consequences modeling, management of a group of structures (typically an offshore field or a group of vessels), effects of indirect cost modeling in the estimation of consequences.
590
The needs for rational and optimal strategies of inspection of offshore units like FPSOs, lead to investigation through cost effective solutions, such as risk-based inspection planning. In Ma et al. (1999), such reasoning is presented with a global overview of maintenance. Following this report, a more closely formulated approach is presented in Ayyub et al. (2000). Risk Based Inspection Planning is currently operational for offshore structures. Examples of practical application to both FPSO and Jacket structures are given in Rouhan et al. (2004) and Goyet et al. (2004). These papers give the experience of the application of such methodologies for real projects in a general and common framework of decision theory.
8.3 Degradation mechanisms
The use of reliability analysis in Risk based inspection methods needs a clear definition of the failure event. A study (Hess et al., 2002) presents methodologies for defining the failure of marine structural designs and analyses. In particular, a review of most relevant failures is presented and arranged into classes of failure modes. This leads to a methodology for formulating the range of failure definitions. Main time-dependant degradation mechanisms in ship structure are corrosion and fatigue. The use of quantitative risk Based inspection methods needs comprehensive degradation process models. Both degradation mechanisms have to be used. Following the work of Guedes Soares and Garbatov, Hu and Cui present in their paper a similar approach, but use more advanced non linear corrosion degradation models and takes into account the effect of fatigue cracks on the tensile and comprehensive residual ultimate strength of stiffened plates (Yong and Cui, 2004). This is a comprehensive way to take into account both degradation mechanisms. In the next section, recent advances in corrosion and fatigue models are presented.
8.4 Corrosion models
Risk based inspection and repair regarding corrosion effects of ship structures is presented in Li et al. (2004). A linear corrosion degradation model is used in conjunction with the classical framework of decision theory for the RBI analysis (Faber, 2002). In his paper, Paik (2004) presents a statistical analysis of measured corrosion data on sea-water ballast tank structures of bulk carriers and oil tankers. In his study, a linear corrosion degradation model is used. The knowledge of parameters of degradation models for corrosion can either be obtained through laboratory tests or using experience feedback from measurements on existing ships. A statistical analysis of 110,000 thickness measurements from a single hull oil tanker is presented in Wang et al. (2003). Mean standard deviation and maximum values of corrosion rates for structural members are obtained and compared to the range published by the Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum.

8.5 Fatigue models
591
The fatigue degradation mechanism is still an important research topic. For efficient inspection planning a rather good knowledge of time crack propagation mechanism is necessary. The use of probabilistic approaches in RBI leads to the use of more efficient stress intensity factors computations. In Caroll et al. (2003), new stress intensity factors solutions based on the Shen-Glinka weight function solutions are presented. These are conservative but computation is time-efficient. The prediction of stable cracks propagation in stiffened panels is presented in Robert and Hussam (2004). The main objective of it is to provide predictive models for large cracks after they become through-thickness cracks. Also, the effects of residual stresses and redundancy on crack growth are investigated. Results are compared with experimental tests.
8.6 Inspection and repair
The Receiver Operating Curve characterizes the performance of inspections. This involves both probability of detection and probability of false alarms. Current models of Risk Based Inspection planning use only the probability of detection (PoD) curves. Most of the usual inspection of ship structure is done using general visual and close visual inspection. In Demsetz and Cabrera (1999), in-situ experiments are used as means for obtaining PoD information regarding close visual inspection. Regarding maintenance and more particularly inspection and repair of FPSOs, experience feedback is of importance. In Potthurst (2003) and Lloyds Register (2003), the feedback of Inspection, repair and maintenance of FPSOs is presented. The kind of defects, damages and failures found is presented. Remedial and repair work is accordingly presented. This includes hull structure but also pipe-work, pumps and control systems, caissons, cranes, thrusters, etc. In Lloyds Register (2003), the reports conclude with an interesting recommended practice for such units. Also, in-service non destructive testing evaluation has been performed Tiku (2003) on several techniques. The study focused on crack detection and crack growth measurement, critical flaw size estimation, and estimation of remaining fatigue crack initiation life.
8.7 Assessment procedures update
The existing practice of maintenance of safe and effective exploitation of the ship is based on realization with this or that periodicity of surveys of both ship as a whole and her separate system-constituting elements - hull, engines and machinery, systems, gears, electric equipment, wireless apparatus and navigational aids, etc. Such surveys are conducted by different participants of marine branch flag administrations, ports authorities, classification societies, insurers, independent surveyors, and so on. The role of similar ship control procedures is rather great. As a matter of fact, they are the main sources of actual knowledge about real condition of the object and its elements, about its capability to perform its functions (see, Egorov, 2002b). Ship surveys can be classified
592
into four types: degree of obligation (compulsory or optional), organization (e.g. port State control, classification society, shipowners, etc.), coverage (entire ship, part of ship, component or system), and modus operandi (e.g. review of documents and certificates, detailed survey, general inspection, etc,). During the 1980s the situation arose in the world fleet where the rather small volume of orders for building new ships created favorable conditions for the exploitation of ships of age up to 30 years. Investors did not show interest in long-term crediting, allowing existing ships with a low standard of condition and even substandard ones to work in the market. The leading shipping companies, using first-class tonnage, including ships older than 20 years but having good technical condition and professionally prepared crews, could not compete on equal terms with the unscrupulous ship-owners, exploiting substandard ships. As a response IACS introduced a procedure of extended survey of oil, gas and bulk carrying ships for the purpose of detection of the most severe cases of aging hull structures. Soon leading classification societies implemented different schemes for updating of the hull condition records and schemes for assessment of ships in service that allowed them to justify safe operations of aged ships. In addition, the increasing cost of ship construction has resulted in ship owners searching for ways of prolonging the service life of existing ships. As a result, many classification societies have elaborated procedures (including computational methods and criteria) for estimation of actual hull condition of aged ships (20 years and older) for conformity to the requirements of the lower age (5, 10, 15 years) with the definition of necessary volumes of repair and recovery of structures. On the basis of such procedures the idea was laid down about identifying the hull structure of the ship and her destination with variation of age. In other words, the existing ship of 25 years age was compared with the same one, but having an age of 5, 10, or 15 years. On the basis of similar matching the necessary volume of renovation repair was determined, which was exceeding a volume of customary repair for class confirmation. The first was Lloyds Register, who elaborated in 1989 and implemented the renovation procedure. In 1994 it received the name Condition Assessment Scheme (Hull Renovation). The CAS procedure fundamentals were based on the comparison of the actual hull thickness values with those necessary for renovation of one of two levels (1SS or 2SS). The latter were estimated based on the calculations by operating Rules with account of the design wearing level for 5 and 10 years respectively. In 1989 Det Norske Veritas developed for the oil-carrying and oil-bulk-carrying ships the Condition Assessment Program (CAP) procedure, comprising assessment, independently of the classification, of the following ship elements: hull, engines, machinery, and electric equipment; cargo and ballast systems. The CAP (see, Egorov, et al, 2002) procedure was prepared prior to introduction of the procedure of extended surveys as additional optional service for the ship-owners to enable detection and correction of ships with insufficient standard of technical maintenance. The CAP is a tool for an independent estimation of reliability and efficiency of ships obtained by the classification society.

9. HULL MONITORING & STRUCTURAL DESIGN
593
9.1
Feedback from monitoring and its influences on structural design innovations
In order to ensure the safety of ships and marine structures, it is essential to understand the behavior of the structural elements in an actual sea environment. Structural fatigue is one of the most such important phenomena behaviors to be studied. However, its mechanisms are complicated and subject to various uncertainties such as the inexact magnitude of external forces, a lack of precision in structural analysis, insufficient accuracy of fabrication, and residual stress. Monitoring actual structural elements in operation is therefore a very effective way of calibrating and verifying structural design methodologies. An intensive research project was carried out for 4 years, starting in 1999, by the Ship Research Panel No.235 (SR245) organized by JSRA. In this project, a realistic storm model was proposed and in-service monitoring of a double-hull VLCC was carried out for 2-1/2 years to study the relationship between sea conditions and the fatigue strength of the hull (Fujino et al., 2003). Based on these results, a systematic methodology for fatigue design of ship structural elements, as shown in Fig. 9-a was proposed.
Figure 6 Monitoring and evaluation of fatigue life
594
9.2

Innovative monitoring devices
9.2.1
Sacrificial specimen
The conventional stress-measurement methods utilizing strain gauges for actual structures are expensive because they require strain-measurement devices, wiring works, and the recording of stress history. Fujimoto et al. (2000, 2002) have therefore proposed a monitoring method utilizing sacrificial specimens that serves to solve this problem. In this method, a small fatigue specimen is designed so that the stress of the structural element is mechanically amplified when it is secured to the structures. Fatigue damage will therefore occur much earlier in the specimen, typically in only several months. There are two advantages of this method. One is that the fatigue life of structural elements can be predicted from the fatigue damage condition developed in the specimen. The other is that the characteristics of long-term stress applied to the structural element can be estimated from the fatigue damage that has occurred in the specimen. A unique feature of this method is that the characteristics of the stress history accumulate in the specimen as fatigue damage, in contrast to the recording stress history measured by strain gauges. Setup of the specimen is simple, in that is pasted onto the surface of the hull structure with an adhesive agent. Figure 7 shows an application image of the sacrificial specimen and Figure 8 presents the shape of the specimens. Cables, electric power supply, etc. are not necessary with this method, and multi-point fatigue monitoring can easily be achieved. In the study, highsensitivity-type sacrificial specimens were installed on a container ship and monitored over a period of 1.2 years. The characteristics of long-term stress distribution estimated by the sacrificial specimen agree well with those indicated by an ordinary strain gauge.
Figure 7 Application of the sacrificial specimen
595
Figure 8 Examples of sacrificial specimens 9.2.2 Piezoelectric sensors
Piezoelectric materials such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) generate electric charge on their surface in response to an applied stress. Using this property, it is possible to measure two-dimensional stress distribution on the surface of the structure. PVDF film is a flexible, lightweight, tough engineering plastic available in a wide variety of thicknesses and can be applied for various measuring purposes. It can be directly attached to a structure without disturbing its mechanical motion. It is therefore well-suited to strain-sensing that requires a very wide bandwidth and a high sensitivity. Liu et al. (2002) have applied PVDF film to measurement of the stress distribution of a structural element. Fujimoto et al. (2003) have also developed a piezoelectric sensor to measure the stress intensity factors of twodimensional cracks. Figure 9 shows the image of a stress intensity factor sensor applied to a structural element.
Figure 9. Image of application of the stress intensity factor sensor to the structural element
596
9.2.3
Fiber optic strain sensors
In marine structures, fiber optic sensor technologies offer some attractive advantages such as: - Measurement at multiple locations can be carried out by a single system, - Free from electronic and magnetic effects, and - Nonexplosive. These characteristics indicate that these technologies are suitable for measuring the strain of ship structures such as the internal structures of crude-oil tankers, etc. Murayama and Kageyama (1998) have applied fiber optic strain sensors to measure the dynamic strain on the deck of a training ship 50-meters in length caused by slamming. The measured strain history of the fiber optic strain sensor was compared with that obtained by conventional strain gauges (Figure 10). Murayama et al. (2003) applied these fiber optic sensors to monitoring of the longitudinal and transverse strain of America's Cup Class yachts made of CFRP (Figure 11). The measured data were verified by a comparison with FEM simulation.
Figure 10 Comparison of the measured strain by fiber-optic sensor with that measured by strain gauges Figure 11 Location of the sensing fibers in the yacht Zhou and Sim (2002) reviewed the research and development of in situ fiber optic damage detection and assessment systems embedded in fibre-reinforced composite structures. Brag grating strain sensors offer several advantages due to their simple construction and ability to be multiplexed along a single fiber for distributed strain measurement.
597
Wang et al (2001) installed a distributed system of surface mounted optic fiber Brag grating sensors in the composite hull and deck of a new Norwegian naval vessel. The sensors were used to monitor the dynamic loading of hull. Li et al (2004) investigated the application of embedded fibre optic Bragg grating strain sensors for the health monitoring of adhesively bonded composite ship joints. Bragg grating sensors were embedded at various locations along the interface of adhesively bonded glassreinforced plastic composite joints with artificially introduced disbands to assess their capability to detect bond-line damage under in-plane shear and through-thickness tension.
10.
CONCLUSIONS
Proactive, timely safety measures are of the foremost importance, not only in terms of safe voyages, but also because imprecise safety and environmental protection measures undertaken in the hope of decreasing the costs can actually result in phenomenal expenditure in the event of an accident. Consequently statutory and regulatory bodies and others concerned with the design of ships and offshore structures have in recent years worked towards integrating consideration of safety in the design process as exemplified by the concept of design for safety. Among the most prominent relevant initiatives has been the adoption of Goal Based Standards by IMO. In order to meet the challenge posed by the move towards goal-based standards several methodologies and technologies have been developed and/or refined. Central to this has been the application of risk-based methods, which explicitly account for both the frequency of a failure occurring and also its consequence. The application of first principles methods has increased in recent years, and has become even more necessary to provide input into risk analysis. Furthermore, application of risk contribution trees has facilitated the process of Design for safety (as coined by the marine industry in the late 1990s). Another important development is the classification societies drive towards common rules. Current initiatives have focused on rules for tanker and bulk carrier structures. The common rules have been developed in the spirit of goal-based standards. Other important initiatives include the increasingly prominent role taken by ISO in developing the first truly international standards for the design of offshore structures. Market forces have driven designers to innovate. For example, the economics of the container trade necessitate faster and larger containerships, the growth of natural gas as a major energy source requires larger LNG carriers, and the search for new offshore oil fields has led to offshore facilities in deeper waters as well as the search for new ocean space utilization has led to Very Large Floating Structures and relevant technique developments. These forces have resulted in novel configurations, extended existing configurations, and increased the use of newer materials. Some progress has been made in adapting decision theory and using rational approaches to address these trends. The challenge remains implementing these tools in a design environment dominated by minima imposed by rulebased design. Criteria and principles regarding design and the uncertainties are main objectives for designers and relevant innovative techniques have been developed over recent years. The same forces that have driven designers to innovate have also been the impetus to take a more rational view of the inspection and maintenance process. This includes the development of asset integrity management schemes, the application of risk-based methods,
598
the development of models for predicting structural degradation rates, etc. In the same vein hull monitoring systems are increasingly being seen as important sources of information to feed back into the design process. The design, construction and maintenance phases of a typical marine structure have in the past been isolated phases with limited interaction between each phase. The trends summarized above suggest a future in which a more integrated approach, or a more systems view of the asset in question, will prevail. This development should be encouraged.
REFERENCES
American Bureau of Shipping, (2003a) ABS Guidance Notes On Review And Approval Of Novel Concepts, Houston. American Bureau of Shipping, (2000b) ABS Guidance Notes On Risk Assessment Applications For The Marine And Offshore Oil And Gas Industries, Houston.American Bureau of Shipping, (2003c) ABS Guide for Risk Evaluations for the Classification of Marine Related Facilities, Houston. American Bureau of Shipping (2000c), Investigation into damage sustained by the MV CASTOR on 30 December 2000. ABS technical report dated 17 October 2001. American Bureau of Shipping (2003) Guidance Notes on Review and Approval of Novel Concepts, June 2003. American Club (2005), Shipboard Safety. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Inc. American Petroleum Institute (1969), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, 1st Edition, API RP 2A, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. American Petroleum Institute (1993), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Load and Resistance Factor Design, 1st Edition, API RP 2A - LRFD, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Arai, M., Makiyama, H. S. and Cheng, L.Y. (2002) Numerical Simulation of Sloshing of Water in Ship Tanks During Sequential Ballast Water Exchange in Seaways. Proceedings, OMAE02, CD-ROM. Arai, M., Makiyama, H.S. (2004) Numerical simulation of bulk carriers' ballast water exchange at sea and assessment of sloshing loads. Proceedings, ISOPE-2004, CD-ROM. Arai, M., Cheng, L.Y. (2004) An Accurate and Stable Method for Computing Sloshing Impact Pressure and its Application to the Study of Bulk-Carrier Ballast-Tank Sloshing. Proceedings, PRADS. Arai,M., Shimizu,T. (2003), Application of Response Surface Methodology to the Optimization of Oil Tankers' Transverse Structures, TEAM2003, pp.219-228. Ayyub B.M., Akpan U.O., De Souza G.F (2000), Risk based life cycle management of ship structures. Technical report, Ship Structure Committee, 2000. Barone, M., Bertorello, C. (2004). Design Optimization of Trimaran Hull by Mutiattribute Concept, 9th Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, Luebeck-Travemuende, Germany.
599
Barski, M., and Kruzelecki, J. (2005). Optimal design of shells against buckling by means of the simulated annealing method, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 29, pp. 61-72. Beaudouin, F., M. Lassagne and B. Munier (2004), Integrating Decision Analysis in Operations Management: Methodology, Applications , in van Wassenhove, L., A. De Meyer, E. Ycesan, et H. Boer (eds), Operations Management as a Change Agent-Proceedings of the 2004 EUROMA (European Operations Management Association) Conference, 27-30 June, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Berg, A.: Fiber optical sensor, Patent application NO: 2001.6358 Berntsen, PIB, Aamo, OM, and Srensen, AJ (2003). "Modelling and control of single point moored interconnected structures", Proc. 6th Conf. on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Crafts (MCMC2003), September 16-19, Girona, Spain Berntsen, PIB, Leira, BJ, Aamo, OM, and Srensen, AJ (2004). "Structural reliability criteria for control of large-scale interconnected marine structures", Proc. 23rd OMAE, Vancouver, Canada Biasotto P., Rouhan A (2004), Survey and inspection management for FPSOs. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 2004. Birmingham, R.W., Sen, P., Cain, C., Cripps, R.M., (2000). Development and implementation of a design for safety procedure for search and rescue craft, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2000. Bloch A., Srensen J.D, Faber M.H. (2000), Simplified approach to inspection planning. In 8th ASCE Speciality Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, 2000. Bonnett, Danny (2005), Wind turbine foundations loading, dynamics and design, Structural Engineer, v 83, n 3, Feb 1, 2005, p 41-45. Boulougouris, E., and Papanikolaou, A., (2003). Optimization of naval ships with genetic algorithms for enhanced survivability, Proceedings of the 8th International Marine Design Conference, Athens, Greece. Brachet, Y., Vallette-Fontaine, M. (2000). Transnucleares experience in ship adaptation // Proc. of International Workshop on Utilization of Nuclear Power in Oceans N'ocean 2000. - Toranomon Pastoral, Tokyo, JAPAN. - P. 182 -188. Brown D P, Observations on experience with welded ships. The Welding Journal 1952:765-82. Chen, Q. (2001) "Analysis and Control of Riser Angles", Master Thesis, Dept. of Marine Structures, Faculty of Marine Technology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. Cramer Heike (FSG), Tellkamp Jan (FSG), (2002) Towards the Direct Assessment of a Ship's Intact Stability, Proceedings of the 6th International Ship Stability Workshop, Glen Cove, New York. CA-FSEA (1999), Final Report Concerted Action on Formal Safety and Environmental Assessment (CA-FSEA), European Commission 4th Framework Programme, WA-96CA-1155. Cain, C, (2002). Design for Safety: A practical approach and its implementation within the Royal Nation Lifeboat Institution. PhD Thesis, Newcastle University, April 2002. Caroll L.B., Tiku S., Dinovitzer A.S. (2003), Rapid stress intensity factor solution estimation for ship structure applications. Technical report, Ship Structure Committee, 2003.
600
Chantelauve, G. (2003), An overview of maritime safety assessment trends in a stakeholder perspective, ESREL 2003 European Conference, June 16-18, Maastricht, The Netherlands Chantelauve, G. (2004), The maritime experience from prescriptive towards goal-based regulatory framework, SRA-Europe Conference, November 15-17, Paris, France. Chen, S., Wang, L., Wu, X., Wang, X. (2003). Multi-objective genetic algorithms and their application to ship fleet optimization, Proceedings of the 8th International Marine Design Conference, Athens, Greece. Choi, Y. R. et al.(2004) An analysis of Rolling Performance for a Barge-Type FPSO, Proceedings of SNAK 2004 Annual Conference Cho, K. N. et al(2004) A Study on the Design of Mega Float for Airport and Harbor at Haeundae Front Sea, RCMS Tech. Report Cho, K.N. et al (2004) Assessment of Dynamic Behavior of Cable System Due to Launching and Recovery of UUV, Proceedings of SNAK 2004 Annual Conference Cho, K.N. et al (2004) Dynamic Analysis of ROV cable Considering the Coupling motion of ROV Cable, J. of Structural Engineering and Mechanics Cho, K.N. et al (2005) Analysis of Normal Mode Vibration of UUV Supporting System Considering Pre-stressed Effect, Proceedings, ISOPE 2005 Chung, T.H., et al(2003) Design of Stiffened Cylindrical Shells and Local Structures under External Pressure, Proceedings, SNAK 2003 Annual Conference Collette, M, Cooper, M, Mesbahi, A, and Incecik (2005), An integrated reliability, risk analysis, and cost model for preliminary structural design: A module of the Safety@Speed design methodology, International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST2005, June 2005, St.Petersburg, Russia. Cramer Heike (FSG), Tellkamp Jan (FSG), (2003) Towards Safety as Performance Criteria in Ship Design, RINA Conference on Ship Safety, London. de Leon D., Ortega C. (2004), Calculation of indirect losses for the risk analysis of an offshore oil complex in Mexico. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 2004. Delautre, S, et al. (2003), Application of a risk based methodology to preliminary design phase of a high speed craft, A International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST 2003, 7th-10th October, Ischia, Italy Demsetz L.A., Cabrera J. (1999) Detection probability assessment for visual inspection of ships. Technical report, Ship Structure Committee. Det Norske Veritas, Qualification Procedures For New Technology, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-A203, September 2001. Egorov, G.V (2001). Ensuring safety of existing ships when changing ballast at sea. Proceedings of the 1st International Congress of Seas and Oceans. Szczecin: Maritime University of Szczecin, Poland. Vol. 1 P. 135-143. Egorov, G., Evenko, V. and Kouteinikov, M. (2002). CAP - Further development of renovation procedure, based on Russian Maritime Register of Shipping experience // Proc. of the 10th International Congress of IMAM (IMAM2002). - Rhethymno, Greece. Paper No 13. P. 8. Egorov, G.V. (2002a). Study on some off-design conditions of ship hull exploitation // Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Marine Industry (MARIND'2002). - Varna (Bulgaria). Vol. II. - P. 181-188.
601
Egorov, G.V. (2002b). Ship surveys as tool for ships actual technical condition assessment and maintenance of their safe and efficient exploitation // Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Marine Industry (MARIND'2002). - Varna (Bulgaria). Vol. II. - P. 243-250. Egorov G.V. (2003). Maintenance of hull strength and survivability of the river-sea ships for transportation of the liquefied gas // Proc. of Third Intern. Conf. Navy and shipbuilding Nowadays (NSN'2003). - Saint-Petersburg: Krylov Shipbilding Research Institute, 2003. Section A. - P. 364 - 373. Faber M.H. (2002), Risk based inspection - the framework. In Structural Engineering International, editor, ESRA Workshop on Risk Based Inspection Planning, volume 12, 2002. Faber M.H., Engelund S., Soerensen J.D. Bloch A. (2000), Simplified and generic risk based inspection planning. In OMAE 00. Faber M.H., Maes M.A., Abdelatif S.S. (2004a), Consequence and utility modeling in rational decision making. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 2004. Faber M.H., Maes M.A., Nishijima K. (2004b) Optimal design and portfolio risk management for groups of structures. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 2004. Florentino S., de Leon D., Silva J. (2004), Optimal inspection methodology for offshore structures based on an economic decision theory. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 2004. Fossen, T.I. (2002). Marine Control Systems - Guidance, Navigation and Control of Ships, Rigs and Underwater Vehicles, Marine Cybernetics, Trondheim, Norway. Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman. Fujikubo Masahiko, Xiao Taoyun and Yamamura Kazuhiro (2003), Structural safety assessment of a pontoon-type VLFS considering damage to the breakwater, Journal of Marine Science and Technology (2003) 7:119-127 Fujimoto, Y., Hamada, K., Shintaku, E., Pirker, G. (2000) Development of High-sensitivity Sacrificial Specimen for Long-term Stress Monitoring of Structures, Journal of The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol.187, pp.355-364. Fujimoto, Y., Pirker, G., Ito, H., Shintaku, E., Shono, S (2002) Development of High Sensitivity Sacrificial Specimen for Fatigue Life Prediction of Structures, Ship Technology Research, Vol.49, No.1, pp.33-44. Fujimoto, Y., Shintaku, E., Pirker, G., Tanaka, Y. (2003) Stress Intensity Factor Measurement of Two-Dimensional Cracks by the Use of Piezoelectric Sensor, JSME International Journal, Series A, Vol. 46, No.4, pp.567-574. Fujino, M., Tomita, Y., Sueoka, H., Yamamoto, S., Fukuoka, T., Kada, K. (2003) A Study on the Advanced Lifecycle Fatigue Management, World Maritime Technology Conference, San Francisco, Paper No. A7(R130), pp.1-22. Gantois, K., Morris, A.J. (2004). The Multi-disciplinary design of a large-scale civil aircraft wing taking account of manufacturing costs, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 28, pp. 31-46. Goyet J., Straub D., Faber M. (2002), Risk based inspection planning methodology and application to an offshore structure. In Herms, editor, Revue franaise de gnie civil, volume 6, 2002.
602
Goyet J., Rouhan A., Faber M.H. (2004), Industrial implementation of risk based inspection planning methods. Lessons learnt from experience (1) The case of FPSOs. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June. Guedes Soares C., Garbatov Y. (1996), " Reliability of Maintained Ship Hulls Subjected to Corrosion", Journal Of ship research, Vol 40, No3, pp235-243, 1996 Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. (1982), "The meaning and use of the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve", Radiology, no 143, pp29-36, 1982. Heredia-Zavoni E., Santa-Crus S. (2004) Maintenance decisions for offshore structures using real options theory. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 2004. Hess P.E., Ayyub B.M., Knight D.E. (2002), Failure definition for structural reliability assessment. Technical report, Ship Structure Committee, 2002.- Hrte, T., L. Hovem, and J. Kvlsvodl (2004), Risk Based Bottom Slamming, 9th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS 2004). Lbeck: Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft. 594-603. Hong, S.Y.et al. (2004b) Development of Design Technology of Very Large Floating Structures. Report of KORDI, UCM00690-04099 (in Korean) Hong, S.Y., Cho, S.K. and Kim, J.H. (2004a) Characteristics of Wave Loading and Structural Response of Mat-type VLFS due to Waves. Proceedings, ISOPE-2004, CD-ROM Hutton, W. (1996), The State Were in: Why Britain is in Crisis and How to Overcome It, London : Vintage, revised edition. IACS (2004), IACS Presentation to MSC 78: IMO goal-based standards and IACS common rules for building robust oil tankers and bulk carriers, IMO, London, 12 May 2004 International Maritime Organization (2002) Guidelines on ergonomic criteria for bridge equipment and layout. MSC Circular 928. London. International Maritime Organization (2003) Satellite Services (INMARSAT and COSPASSARSAT): Explanation of a simplified voyage data recorder (S-VDR) and proposed combination of it with a satellite EPIRB. Submitted by Japan. COMSAR 8/5/2. London. International Maritime Organization (2004a) Goal-based new ship construction standards: Submitted by the Bahamas, Greece and IACS. MSC 78/6/2. London. International Maritime Organization (2004b) Human Element: Ergonomics. Submitted by Liberia. MSC 79/14/yy. London. (in prep.) International Maritime Organization (2004c) Safety of NavigationBridge Design, Equipment and Arrangements: Submitted by IACS. MSC 78/11/3. London. International Maritime Organization (2004d) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and Sediments. Annex, BWM/CONF/36, International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships, February, 2004. ISSC (2003), Committee IV.1 Design Principles and Criteria. ISO (2003) Petroleum and natural gas industries - Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 7: Stationkeeping systems for floating offshore structures and mobile offshore units. (The current version is ISO TC 67/SC 7 N dated 9/25/2003 document ISO/CD 19901-7.E.3 Work Group 5)
603
ISO (2004) Petroleum and natural gas industries - Floating offshore structures - Part 1. (The current version is ISO TC 67/SC 7 N dated 9/7/2004 document ISO/CD 199041.E3.0 Work Group 5) Jacobs, J.H., Etman, L.F.P., Van Keulen, F., and Rooda, J.E. (2004). Framework for sequential approximate optimization, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 27, pp. 384-400. Jang, B.S., Yang, Y.S., Jung, H.S., Yeun, Y.S., (2005). Managing approximation models in collaborative optimization, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 30, pp. 11-26. Kada, K., Fujita, T., (2003) Investigation on Hydro elastic Response of VLFS, Proceedings, TEAM 2003, Taiwan Kashiwagi Masashi (2000), A time-domain mode-expansion method for calculation transient elastic responses of a pontoon-type VLFS, Journal of Marine Science and Technolgy (2000) 5:89-100 Kashiwagi Masashi (2004), Transient responses of a VLFS during landing and take-off of an airplane, Journal of Marine Science and Technology (2004) 9:14-23 Kelly, G. D. Kelly and A. Gamble (1997), Stakeholder Capitalism, London: MacMillan Press. Khajehpour, S., Grierson, D.E. (2003). Profitability versus safety of high-rise office buildings, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 25, pp. 279-293. Klanac, A., Kujala, P. (2004). Optimal design of steel sandwich panel applications in ships, 9th Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, Luebeck-Travemuende, Germany. Kotinis, M., Parsons, M.G., Lamb, T., Sirvente, A. Development and Investigation of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Vol. 112. Krte, J. et al. (2002), On the use of risk analysis in different decision domains, ESREL 2002 European Conference, March 19-21, Lyon, France. Ku A., Serratella C., Spong R., Basu R., Wang G., Angevine D. (2004), Structural reliability applications in developing risk-based inspection plans for a floating production installation. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June. Kwon,D.Y., Park, H.I.,(2004) A Numerical Analysis for the Dynamic Behavior of ROV Launcher and First cable on the Combined Excitations, Proceedings KCORE 2004 Annual Conference Lassagne, M. et al. (2001), Prescriptive and Risk-Based Approaches to Regulation: The Case of FPSOs in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Technology Conference, 30 April3 May 2001, Houston, Texas Lassagne, M. (2004), Risk Governance in the Maritime Industry : Organizational Practices and Regulation , XXth EGOS (European Group for Organization Studies) colloquium, Sub-Theme 16 - Risk and Regulation: Relationships, Dynamics and Rationales within and between Organizations , July 1-4, Ljubljana, Slovenia. [NB: an improved version of this paper is currently at the submission stage with the Journal of Management Studies] Leira,B.J.; Srensen,A.J., Strand,J.P, & Larsen, C.M.(2001) "A Reliability-Based On-line Dynamic Positioning Control Algorithm", ICOSSAR 2001, Newport Beach,USA. Leira, B.J.; Chen, Q.; Srensen, A.J. & Larsen, C.M.(2001a):Modeling of Riser Response for DP Control, Proc OMAE 2001, Paper SR-2160, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
604
Li D., Zhang S., Tang W. (2004), Risk based inspection and repair optimization of ship structures considering corrosion effects. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June. Li, H.C.H., Herszberg, I., Mouritz, A.P., Davis, C.E., Galea, S.C. (2004), Sensitivity of embedded fibre optic Bragg grating sensors to disbonds in bonded composite ship joints, Composite Structures, v 66, n 1-4, October/ December, 2004, p 239-248. Liu, G., Fujimoto, Y., Shintaku, E., Wakabayashi, S., Masaguchi, T., Komatsubara, N. (2002) Application of PVDF Film to Stress Measurement of Structural Member, Journal of The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol.192, pp.591-599. Ma K.T., Orisamolu I.R., Bea R.G. (1999), Optimal strategies for inspection of ship for fatigue and corrosion damage. Technical report, Ship Structure Committee. Mangiavacchi. A. (2005a) API Offshore Structure Standards: RP 2A and much more, Paper OTC 17697, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. Mangiavacchi. A. (2005b) API Offshore Structure Standards: 2006 and beyond, Paper OTC 17698, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. Manwell, J.F.; Rogers, A.L.; McGowan, J.G.; Elkinton, C.N. (2004), Characterization of external conditions for the design of offshore wind energy systems for the United States, Collection of the 2004 ASME Wind Energy Symposium Technical Papers at the 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan 5-8 2004, Reno, NV, United States p 487-497. McAllister, C.D., Simpson, T.W., Hacker, K., Lewis, K., Messac, A. (2005). Integrating linear physical programming within collaborative optimistion for multiobjective multidisciplinary design optimization, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 29, pp. 178-189. Melchers, R.E. (2002), Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures & Buildings, 152(4): 351-359. Meyer, J., Whitcomb, C.A., (2004a). Theoretical Approach to Profit-Maximizing Design Margin Selection, Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 16-23. Meyer, J., Whitcomb, C.A., (2004b). Numerical Method for Design Margin Selection, Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 24-42. Moore, W.H. (2003a) Report from the 50th session of the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association publication. New York. Moore, W.H. (2004b) Report from the 78th session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association publication. New York. Moore, W.H. (2004c) Report from the 51st session of the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association publication. New York. Moore, W.H. (2005) Report from the 52nd session of the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee and 79th session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association publication. New York. Murayama, H., Kageyama, K., Naruse, H., Shimada, A., Uzawa, K. (2003) Application of Fiber-Optic Distributed Sensors to Health Monitoring for Full-Scale Composite Structures, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol.14, pp.3-13.
605
Murayama, H., Kageyama, K., Kimpara, I., Suzuki, T., Ohsawa, I., Kanai, M. (1998) Fundamental study on smart structure approach to marine structure (Part 3, Monitoring structural integrity of a ship using fiber optic strain sensors in field tests), Journal of The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol.184, pp.513-522. Nakamura, Y. Ship Safety and Marine Environment -Study on Ballast Water Exchange Methods in ClassNK. First International Conference on Ballast Water Management, 2001. Neto, J.A.N., Estefen, S.F., Quaranta, F., (2004) Floating Protection System for Collision of Supply Vessel on FPSO Hull Numata, H. et al, (2002) On a Natural Ballast Water Exchange Method. Transactions, West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, No.104, pp.101-109. Paik J.K. (2004), Corrosion analysis of seawater ballast tank structures. International journal of maritime engineering, 2004. Park, S.W., Hong, S.Y. and Lee, T.K. (2004) A study of preliminary structural design of pontoon type VLFS, Proceedings, ISOPE-2004, CD-ROM Parsons, M.G., Scott, R.L. (2004). Formulation of Multicriterion Design Optimization Problems for Solution With Scalar Numerical Optimization Methods, Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 61-76. Peri, D., Campana, E.F. (2003). Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Naval Surface Combatant, Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-12. Potthurst R. (2003), Tanker conversion to FPSOs, OGP Marine Risks Workshop Proceedings. LLoyds Register (2003), FPSO inspection repair & maintenance - study into best practice, UKOOA. Rigo, P. (2003). How to minimize production costs at the preliminary design stage, Proceedings of the 8th International Marine Design Conference, IMDC 2005., Athens, Greece. RINA (2005), Human Factors in ship design, safety and operation, Proceedings of the Conference, 23 24 February 2005, London, UK Robert J.D., Hussam N.M. (2004), Predicting stable fatigue crack propagation in stiffened panels. Technical report, Ship Structure Committee, 2004. Rouhan A., Goyet J., Faber M.H. (2004), Industrial implementation of risk based inspection planning methods. Lessons learnt from experience (2) The case of steel offshore structures. In 23rd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June. RR-S502 (2004) Regulation Research Summary Report No.258R, The Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan, 2004. Safety at Speed Consortium (2004), Final Technical Report, contract number G3RD-CT2001-00331, August 2004. Schaumann, Peter; Kleineidam, Patric; Wilke, Fabian (2004), Fatigue Design bei OffshoreWindenergieanlagen (Fatigue design of offshore wind energy conversion systems), (in German), Stahlbau, v 73, n 9, p 716-726. Seo, S.I., Son, K.H., Park, M.K., (2003). Optimum Structural Design of Naval Vessels, Marine Tecnology, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 149-157. Shinkai, A., et al, (2002) A Study about the Investigation of Sea Phenomenon on the Ocean where the Ballast Water Exchange of Ships is carried out. Transactions, West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, No.104, pp.91-99.
606
Shinoda, T., Fukuchi, N., Hattori, O. and Nishiura, T. (2002) Study on Ballast Water Exchange for Prevention of Biological Hazards (Part 1) Hydraulic Model Test using Flow-through Method. Transactions, The West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, No. 105, pp. 187-195. Shinoda, T., Fukuchi, N., Takeuchi, J., Nishimura, K. and Hattori, O. (2003) Study on Ballast Water Exchange for Prevention of Biological Hazards (Part 2) Hydrological Model Test for Flow-through Method in Pitching Condition. Transactions, The West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, No. 107, pp. 27-35. Shiraishi Satoru, Iijima Kazuhiro and Harasaki Keitaro (2003), Elastic response characteristics of a very large floating structure in waves moored inside a reef, Journal of Marine Science and Technology (2003) 8:1-10 Stansberg, C.T., Kristiansen, T., (2004) Linear and Nonlinear Wave-Amplification Effects Observed at FPSO Bow Stoney, C and D. Winstanley (2001), Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain , Journal of Management Studies, vol. 38, n5, pp. 603-626. Sumpter J D G and Kent J S Prediction of ship brittle fracture casualty rates by a probabilistic method, Marine Structures 17 (2004) 575-589. Srensen, A. J., Sagatun, S.I. & Fossen,T.I. (1996) Design of a Dynamic Positioning System Using Model-Based Control, J. of Control Eng. Practice, Vol. (4), No. (3), pp. 359-368. Srensen, A.J., Leira, B, Strand,J.P. & Larsen,C.M.(2000a) Modelling and Control of Riser Angles and Stresses in Dynamic Positioning, Proc. 5ht IFAC Conf. On Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft MCMC2000, pp. 275-280, Aalborg, Denmark Srensen, A. J. & Strand,J.P (2000b) Positioning of Small-Waterplane-Area Marine Constructions with Roll and Pitch Damping, J. of Control Eng. Practice, Vol. (8), No. (2), pp. 205-213. Tagg, R and Tuzcu, C (2002), A Performance-based Assessment of the Survival of Damaged Ships Final Outcome of the EU Research Project HARDER, Proceedings of the 6th International Ship Stability Workshop, Webb Institute, USA Tellkamp Jan (FSG), Oestvik Ivan (LMG), (2003) Development of a Methodology for Assessment of Ship Safety - Motivation, Background, and Worked Example, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles (STAB), Madrid. THEMES (2002), Deliverable D1.1 - Preliminary map of current initiatives and stakeholders needs. European Commission 4th Framework Programme Tiku S. (2003), In-service non-destructive evaluation of fatigue and fracture properties for ship structure. Technical report, Ship Structure Committee, 2003. Venter, G., Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. (2003). Particle Swarm Optimization, AIAA Journal, Vol. 41, No.8. Venter, G., Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. (2004). Multidisciplinary optimization of a transport aircraft wing using particle swarm optimization, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 26, pp. 121-131. Venter, G., Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. (2005). Imparting desired attributes in structural design by means of multi-objective optimization, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization 29, pp. 432-444.
607
Vivalda, C. et M. Lassagne (2001), A Formal Method to balance Safety Requirements and Regularity of fast Ships , Proceedings of the FAST 2001 (FAst Sea Transportation) conference, 4-6 September, Southampton, UK. Wang G., Pran K., Sagvolden G., Havsgrd G.B., Jensen A.E., Johnson, G.A. ,Vohra, S.T. (2001), Ship hull structure monitoring using fibre optic sensors, Smart Mater. Struct. Vol. 10, pp 472-478. Wang G., Spencer J. Elsayed T. (2003) Estimation of corrosion rate of structural members in oil tankers. In 22nd International conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, June 2003. Weick, K.E. (1987), Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability , California Management Review, vol. 29, n 2, pp. 112-127. Yagi, Kazuhiro; Tarutani, Toshiya; Dohata, Shigeo; Shiobara, Yasushi (2004),Construction of the first offshore wind turbines in Setana Port in Japan, MTS/IEEE Techno-Ocean '04: Bridges across the Oceans -, Nov 9-12 2004, Kobe, Japan , Conference Proceedings, v 4, pp 1841-1846. Yamashita, Atsushi; Sekita, Kinji (2004), Analysis of the fatigue damage on the offshore wind turbines exposed to wind and wave loads within the typhoon area, 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Jun 20-25 2004, Vancouver, BC, Canada , Volume 1 Part B: Offshore Technology, 2004, p 641-646. Yong Hu, Weicheng Cui (2004), Time-variant ultimate strength of ship hull girder considering corrosion and fatigue. In 9th Symposium on practical design of ships and other floating structures, Lubeck-Travemuende, Germany, 2004. Youn, B.D., Choi, K.K., Liu, D. (2005). Enriched Performance Measure Approach for Reliability-Based Design Optimization, AIAA Journal, Vol. 43, No.4. Zang, D. K., Guo, C.J., Ultimate Strength and Available Lifetime of Hull for FPSO, proceedings, TEAM2003, Taiwan Zanic, V., Andric, J., Frank D. (2003). Structural Optimization Method for the Concept Design of Ship Structures. Proceedings of the 8th International Marine Design Conference, Vol. 1; Papanikolau, A.D. (ed.), Athens, pp. 99-110. Zanic, V., Andric, J., Prebeg, P.(2005). Superstructure deck effectiveness of the generic ship types - a concept design methodology, Proceedings of IMAM 2005: Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of Ocean and Coastal Resources, Vol.1.,Guedes Soares, Gorbatov, Fonseca (ed.), Lisbon, pp. 579-588. Zhou, G. and Sim, L.M. (2002) , Damage detection and assessment in fibre-reinforced composite structures with embedded fibre optic sensors-review Smart Mater. Struct. Vol. 11 , pp 925-939.

Design Principles and Criteria Marine Structures ISSC 2006

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Design Principles and Criteria Marine Structures ISSC 2006

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

16th INTERNATIONAL SHIP AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES CONGRESS 20-25 AUGUST 2006 SOUTHAMPTON, UK VOLUME 1

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA

Marine structures, life-cycle design, uncertainties, risk based approaches

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

532 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.

10. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................... 597 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 598

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

Need for both quantitative and approval/validation of the design process)

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

Figure 1 The four parts of the risk contribution tree method

Event tree section Fault tree section Gate probabilities

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

(Income Costs ) (1 + Discount Rate)

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

*modules defined in Table 1

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria TABLE 2b

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

REFERENCES RELATED TO GENERAL STRUCTURAL DESIGN

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

RELEVANT WORK AT IMO, IACS & ISO

Goal based concepts

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

554 3.1.2.1 Double side skin construction

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

The calculations are done for 2 draughts (summer, partial (*))

The permeability of the cargo hold is constant and equal to 0.70

The damage extent is up to B/2

The damage extent is up to the centre line

The damage stability calculations are performed at level keel (trim = 0)

The maximum damage length is equal to 48 m

558 Standard of damage : Number of persons on board > 400

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

36 < < 400

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

1) Restricted maintenance of generators

Crew Safety And Additional Work

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

Figure 4 Proposed procedures for natural ballast water exchange

IACS common structural rules

Joint tanker project, joint bulk carrier project

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

IMO Goal Based Regulatory Framework

Industry Practices and Procedures for Design, Construction and peration

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria

ISSC committee IV.1: Design Principles and Criteria